Mt 9:18 daughter has just died vs Mk 5:23 at the point of death

[tonychanyt]

Mt 9:

18 While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died [aorist indicative], but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

BSB, Mk 5:

22 A synagogue leader named Jairus arrived, and seeing Jesus, he fell at His feet 23 and pleaded with Him urgently, “My little daughter is near death [adverb]. Please come and place Your hands on her, so that she will be healed and live.”

Mark gave more detail than Matthew. Luke's parallel account was similar to Mark's. Lk 8:

42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying [imperfect indicative].

Next, all three accounts described the healing of a woman [W1] who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years. Again Mark and Luke gave more details than Matthew.

Mk 5:

35 While He was still speaking, messengers from the house of Jairus arrived and said, “Your daughter is dead; why bother the Teacher anymore?”

Lk 8:

49 While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler’s house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.”

When did Jesus hear that the girl was dead, before or after the incident of W1?

Matthew said before but Mark and Luke said after. I'll go with after. Matthew compressed some of the details.

Matthew continued 9:

23 when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, 24 he said, “Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him.

Mk 5:

39 He went inside and asked, “Why all this commotion and weeping? The child is not dead, but asleep.” 40 And they laughed at Him.

Lk 8:

52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.

Now, all three accounts agreed that Jesus said that the girl wasn't dead and Jesus raised her from death.

Matthew's account is a bit more dramatic from a suspense point of view. The girl was dead, so Jesus had to go quickly to her. But then, on his way, an old woman and a crowd interposed. Jesus's power had gone out because of his healing of W1. Would Jesus still have the power to resurrect the little girl?

How to reconcile Mt 9:18 daughter has just died vs Mk 5:23 at the point of death?

The discrepancy between the two accounts is due to Matthrew's compression in this case. The difference does not affect the theological point that Jesus raised the girl from the dead.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Mt 9:


BSB, Mk 5:


Mark gave more detail than Matthew. Luke's parallel account was similar to Mark's. Lk 8:


Next, all three accounts described the healing of a woman [W1] who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years. Again Mark and Luke gave more details than Matthew.

Mk 5:


Lk 8:


When did Jesus hear that the girl was dead, before or after the incident of W1?

Matthew said before but Mark and Luke said after. I'll go with after. Matthew compressed some of the details.

Matthew continued 9:


Mk 5:


Lk 8:


Now, all three accounts agreed that Jesus said that the girl wasn't dead and Jesus raised her from death.

Matthew's account is a bit more dramatic from a suspense point of view. The girl was dead, so Jesus had to go quickly to her. But then, on his way, an old woman and a crowd interposed. Jesus's power had gone out because of his healing of W1. Would Jesus still have the power to resurrect the little girl?

How to reconcile Mt 9:18 daughter has just died vs Mk 5:23 at the point of death?

The discrepancy between the two accounts is due to Matthrew's compression in this case. The difference does not affect the theological point that Jesus raised the girl from the dead.

You're right - it also highlights the problem with the Bible inerrancy / infallibility position - because the statements in Matthew and Mark cannot be both fully true. The texts have a history, there has been editing, and maybe mistakes were made during copying and even while writing.

To quote the well-known theologian NT Wright on this point (I'm not a fan per se): 'I prefer to speak not of inerrancy, but of reliable (enough)' .. The Gospel accounts are reliable enough to make up the essential theology.

Of course the inerrancy position is linked to the position that the Bible is Gods infallible word from cover-to-cover. And indeed Gods word by definition is inerrant and infallible.

 

[johansen]

And indeed Gods word by definition is inerrant and infallible.

So God's word is what God speaks.

Not what man writes.

I highly doubt that any of the 40+ authors of the bible would agree that what they wrote is inerrant. Im sure some of them would defend word for word what they wrote in greek, (concerning what Jesus said) im sure they would have a lot to clarify about their opinions.

And as for the rest of the authors prior to 500 BC im sure they would have a lot to say about how the meanings of words changed.

 

[tonychanyt]

I highly doubt that any of the 40+ authors of the bible would agree that what they wrote is inerrant.

Agreed. Check out All Scripture is GOD-BREATHED