In Genesis 10:14 the text reads "Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites (NIV)." However, we read in Deuteronomy 2:23 and Amos 9:7 that the Philistines came from the Caphtorites. What is correct and why the discrepancy?
Ernst Wurthwein in "The Text of the Old Testament" describes the phrase אֲשֶׁ֙ר יָצְא֥וּ מִשָּׁ֛ם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים "from whom the Philistines came" as a latter scribal comment that was inserted in the text at the wrong place.46 In other words, the phrase was not in the original text, but was a comment that may have been deliberately inserted to explain who the Caphtorites were in the light of the Deuteronomy and Amos texts, but inserted in the wrong place. It also could have been an explanatory note outside the text that a later scribe inadvertently inserted in the text, but in the wrong place. Either way this discrepancy was not original.
Bruce Metzger points out a discrepancy between Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35 with 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. The Luke passage refers to "the blood of Zechariah" while the Matthew passage refers to "the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah." It is clear that both Matthew and Luke are referencing the same source with the point that Jesus is referring to the entire Old Testament canon which began with Genesis and ended with 2 Chronicles. That would make Zechariah the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. The problem is, the Zechariah son of Barachiah is the Zechariah from the book of Zechariah, whereas the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles is another Zechariah son of Jehoiada.
It is true that the Zechariah mentioned in Matthew must be the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles or the point of Jesus makes no sense. It is also true that there are no variable readings of the Matthew 23:35 passage that would lend credence to a transmission error. Point three of my opening discussion on interpretationnt is a summary of John W Montgomery's original statement which states thus: "Harmonization of scriptural difficulties should be pursued within reasonable limits, and when harmonization would pass beyond such bounds, the exegete must leave the problem open rather than, by assuming surd error, impugn the absolute truthfulness of the God who inspires all Holy Scripture for our learning." (see "Opening Remarks" at the beginning of this article) I believe that the original text of Matthew had a shorter text and that a scribe may have inserted a note mistakenly thinking the reference was to Zechariah son of Barachiah. A second scribe would have then copied the note into the text itself. Both Metzger and Aland and Aland.47 claim that "the shorter reading is to be preferred" when looking at internal evidence. For this reason, I believe that the Luke account reflects the original source that both Matthew and Luke got this reference from, despite the fact that there is no external evidence to support a variant here.
Bart Ehrman in his book “Lost Christianities” lists several discrepancies including the one concerning the timing of the Crucifixion already discussed. The others include: (1) Did Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt after Jesus’ birth (Matthew 2:13-23), or return to Nazareth? (Luke 2:39); (2) Was Jairus’s daughter sick and dying when he came to ask Jesus for help (Mark 5:23, 35), or was she already dead? (Matthew 9:18); (3) Did the disciples remain in Jerusalem until Jesus ascended into heaven (Luke 24:1-52), or did they “straightaway” go to Galilee? (Matthew 28:1-20)
(1) There is nothing in the Luke text that disallows a gap of time between the events surrounding the birth of Jesus and the time Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. Matthew records an event that Luke does not: the escape to Egypt. After the escape, in both accounts, the family ends up in Nazareth.
(2) When Jairus first came to Jesus his daughter was dying (Mark account). Then, as Jesus started to go with him, Jesus has the encounter with the woman “subject to bleeding” (both the Mark and Matthew accounts). After the encounter with the woman, some men from the house of Jairus came and informed Jairus (not Jesus). After this, Jairus went to Jesus and told him that his daughter had died (Matthew account). Then he continued on to his home (both accounts). The problem seems to be in Matthew 9:20 “Just then” a woman subject to bleeding came to Jesus. This seems to have the woman subject to bleeding come to Jesus before the girl had died in Mark, but after she had died in Matthew. However, the passage translated “Just then” in the NIV is simply Καὶ ἰδοὺ“and behold” and does not lock the Matthew account of the bleeding woman in the time frame after the girl had died. This translation can be found in the NAS, RSV, and KJV. Matthew and Mark are emphasizing different details of the events that transpired. Matthew is not making a running commentary on events as they transpire.
(3) Both Matthew and Mark (16:7) report that the disciples spent some time in Galilee and met with Jesus there. John, in fact, gives some details of one encounter at the Sea of Galilee (John 21). They were in the vicinity of Jerusalem for the ascension, and there they were told by the resurrected Jesus to remain in Jerusalem to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). The problem here is that in the Matthew account (and Mark) the disciples appear to go to Galilee right after the resurrection, while in Luke there is no account of them going to Galilee. However, as mentioned before, Matthew is not making a running commentary on events as they happened. There is no time frame requiring the disciples to go to Galilee right after the resurrection event.
In Matthew 28:16 the account simply reads that they went to Galilee, probably after an elapse of time. In vs. 18 while in Galilee, Jesus reminds them that they will preach the gospel to all the nations beginning at Jerusalem. He had told them this earlier in the days immediately following the resurrection (Luke 24:45-49) before they left for Galilee. In Luke 24:49, 50, Jesus instructs the disciples to “be seated” ὑμεῖς δὲ καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει in Jerusalem until they are endued with the power of the Holy Spirit. He is not telling them that they have to stay in the city from the moment of his appearing until the day of the coming of the Holy Spirit. He is speaking about what they need to do when that day of the Spirit’s coming has arrived. All the disciples were back in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the ascension (there is a time gap between verses. 49 and 50 in Luke 24) and remained for the receiving of the power of the Holy Spirit.
In Mark 11:12, Jesus encounters the fig tree as they were leaving Bethany, but in Matthew 21:18, Jesus and his disciples were on their way back to the city when they encountered the fig tree. WHICH IS IT?
Also, why is it that in Matthew’s gospel, the withering of the fig tree happens AFTER the cleansing of the Temple (Matthew 21:12-21), but in Mark’s gospel, the withering of the fig tree happens BEFORE the cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:12-19)? Also, …
"And presently the fig tree withered away." Jesus curses a fig tree and the tree dies immediately (showing the world how much God Hates Figs). But in Mark's gospel From:
Here is a long excerpt from Tektonics website which explains “intentional anachronization” to demonstrate that there is no error between Mark (2:4) and Luke (5:19) in the story of the lowering of the paralytic through the roof of Peter’s mother’s house:
There are actually four questions here which I will deal with in order:
(1) It appears that Jesus encountered the fig tree when leaving Bethany in Mark but when arriving in Bethany in Matthew. However, that is not what the text says. The reference to “the city” is a euphemism in Matthew for Jerusalem (cf. Matthew 21:17), so when Jesus and the disciples saw the fig tree on their way back to “the city” in Matthew, they are not returning to Bethany but on the way to Jerusalem FROM Bethany as Mark’s gospel says.
(2) In Matthew 21:12-13, the account of the temple cleansing is reported without any chronological indicators both before and after. Matthew (or a redactor) took the liberty to slip the account in at this point to emphasize his authority as king after the people had proclaimed him Messiah. The events of 21:14-16 are also placed where they are without chronological indicators for the same purpose: to demonstrate Christ’s authority. Chronology is actually a secondary consideration in ancient texts if it is a consideration at all. According to Keener:
...[A]ncient writers exercised their freedom to rearrange sayings, often topically. Writers who collected such sayings summarizing the thrust of a famous teacher's message (such as Epictetus' Encheiridion, Menander's epitome, or the Qumran Temple Scroll) called their collections "epitomes"; Matthew [and Mark I might add] has exercised an analogous literary liberty, collecting many of Jesus' sayings on the topic of ethics, even if the precise comparison with Greek "epitomes" may be overstated.48
Therefore, the order of Mark is probably better for chronological purposes.
(3) Advocates of the idea that Jesus must be having some sort of temper tantrum can have the tables turned on them: it is as absurd to advance this notion as would it be to advance the notion that skeptics also must be having a temper tantrum when they destroy weeds overrunning their own lawns and/or gardens. Jesus was merely pointing out the unfruitfulness of a barren Israel, using the fig tree as a parable of Israel (Mark 13:28).
(4) Matthew says that the fig tree withered “immediately” whereas Mark claims that the fig tree withered “in the morning” of the next day. Actually, the Mark text does not say that the fig tree withered the next morning, only Peter was remarking that the fig tree had been cursed sometime in the past. Also, the word for “immediately” in the Matthew gospel is parachrēma and this word does have some time leeway (Acts 16:33).49
There appears to be a discrepancy between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1. In the Daniel passage, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to and besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. However, in the Jeremiah passage, Nebuchadnezzar came in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
R.K. Harrison helps clear up this problem positing a difference in chronological reckoning. In Babylon, where Daniel is located, the first year of Jehoiakim is seen as an ascension year with the next year counted as year one. However, in Palestine, where Jeremiah is located there is no ascension year reckoned.50
