CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLES: MATTHEW 16:1 // MARK 8:11

There are some teachers of Scripture who, for the best of motives, want to strip away the complexities found in the Bible in order to present a more simplified version with no ambiguities that might confuse people. Unfortunately, this can cater to the desires of the many who don't like to be challenged in their faith with any unnecessary facts that might cause them to reexamine their already set ideas. 

For example, there are various chronological Bibles which combine parallel passages together so that they can be read more easily as a continuous narrative. I first want to make it clear that I don't at all condemn these Bibles. They are certainly very useful for following the overall thrust of biblical history as long as they don't become as a substitute for reading the Bible as it was written. The problem is that such books by necessity have to leave out a wealth of details present in the original.

Using The Daily Bible as an example, here is one verse from the gospels chosen totally at random. It is its account of Matthew 16:1 combined with the parallel passage in Mark 8:11.

“The Pharisees and Sadducees (1) came to (2) Jesus and tested him by asking (3) him to show them a sign from heaven.” (Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11)

        (1) “Others” (Luke 11:16)

        (2) “began to argue with” (Mark 8:11)

        (3) “kept demanding” (Luke 11:16)

To get this reading, the editor basically chose Matthew's longer version, which includes a reference to the Sadducees not found in Mark's Gospel. This should raise the question as to why Matthew felt the need to emphasize the presence of the Sadducees. Or alternatively, why did Mark leave them out? If you look at an analytical concordance you will find that this difference in emphasis is consistent with what Mark and Matthew do elsewhere. Mark only mentions the Sadducees once to Matthew's seven references. That fact alone might prompt a major Bible study in itself, but you would miss it entirely if all you relied was The Daily Bible.

Then there is the question of the Pharisees and Sadducee's motive. Both Matthew and Mark agree that they were trying to test Jesus, but Mark makes it stronger by saying that they began to argue with Jesus, a phrase left out of The Daily Bible, which also omits a possible parallel passage found in Luke 11, which is almost identical to the story in Matthew and Mark, but places it in an entirely different chronological setting. So that brings up the confusing question of whether Jesus had two such identical encounters in his ministry, or whether Luke has maybe placed the story in a different setting for some literary or theological reason. That sort of possibility really disturbs some Christians. 

And, as if the situation weren't complicated enough already, there is another possibly parallel account in John's gospel which is left out of The Daily Bible entirely. There is an admirable motive behind this sort of over-simplification, but unfortunately it also has the side effect of eliminating much of the richness of the original, so it is definitely a trade-off. We really have to be prepared to wrestle with a little ambiguity in the Bible when we run across it and to slow down in our reading at that point even if it runs counter to our desire to speed-read without really comprehending.

A better approach if one is studying Jesus' life, for example, is to use a “harmony of the gospels” so that you can compare the various accounts side-by-side instead. Most will include all four gospels in side-by-side columns, some even highlighting in color the phrases that the various accounts have in common.