When did Jesus heal the Bleeding woman?

[Shermana]

In Luke 8, it's after "he returns" and gets out of the boat from crossing the lake from Garesenes, and proceeds to go "on his way" to a girl who was dying. Same for Mark 5 presumably as he goes to the girl.

As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. 43And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years,c but no one could heal her. 44She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.

In Matthew 9, this happens right after he's done eating with the tax collectors and sinners.

12On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’a For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Jesus Questioned About Fasting

14Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?”

15Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

16“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Jesus Raises a Dead Girl and Heals a Sick Woman

18While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” 19Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.

20Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak. 21She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

How shall we reconcile this? Did Jesus first have dinner with everyone after getting back from Garasenes? Did he start heading "on his way" immediately while talking to them when the Synagogue leader approaches him?

Perhaps the Diatesseron can explain this...

 

[Core]

A lot of people discredit the gospels because of ambiguities and apparent contradictions such as this, which I would say this is a minor example; I think it could basically be chalked up to the fact that different people are writing these parallel accounts, years after Jesus' execution, only naturally will some include details that others do not, or some hear variable stories, etc. Furthermore, the ambiguity in Luke and Mark's accounts leave a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation, especially when translation comes into play, for which one would have to be fluent in Aramaic to tease out the precise meanings of these passages. Essentially it's a flimsy argument for why the gospels are bunk, but the questionable cohesiveness may put a dent in the idea that the scriptures are "Holy" and "inspired by God".

 

[rusra02]

In Luke 8, it's after "he returns" and gets out of the boat from crossing the lake from Garesenes, and proceeds to go "on his way" to a girl who was dying. Same for Mark 5 presumably as he goes to the girl.



In Matthew 9, this happens right after he's done eating with the tax collectors and sinners.



How shall we reconcileal this? Did Jesus first have dinner with everyone after getting back from Garasenes? Did he start heading "on his way" immediately while talking to them when the Synagogue leader approaches him?

Perhaps the Diatesseron can explain this...

The Gospel accounts present different details of Jesus life and ministry, based on the writers audience and purpose. Still, they present a clear, consistent, and complementary history of the most important human who ever lived. Some accounts mention details omitted by the other gospel writers. The Diatessaron, completed about 170 C.E. shows that the four gospels, and only the four gospels, were accepted by the early Christians as inspired Scripture.

 

[outhouse]

for which one would have to be fluent in Aramaic to tease out the precise meanings of these passages

This really is not the case.

The gospels were written by Greek speaking residents of the Diaspora, for people in the diaspora.

Not Amaraic speaking Jews in Galilee

All the gospels are completely absent of tell tale signs on translations from Aramaic to Greek which are quite obvious

 

[Shermana]

A lot of people discredit the gospels because of ambiguities and apparent contradictions such as this, which I would say this is a minor example; I think it could basically be chalked up to the fact that different people are writing these parallel accounts, years after Jesus' execution, only naturally will some include details that others do not, or some hear variable stories, etc. Furthermore, the ambiguity in Luke and Mark's accounts leave a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation, especially when translation comes into play, for which one would have to be fluent in Aramaic to tease out the precise meanings of these passages. Essentially it's a flimsy argument for why the gospels are bunk, but the questionable cohesiveness may put a dent in the idea that the scriptures are "Holy" and "inspired by God".

That's the point, it puts a dent into the idea that the NT is infallible. Not that the Gospels themselves are bunk and can be completely disregarded. Just that the exact details of the narrative are beyond reproach as many fundamentalists like to claim.

I'm not sure exactly if fluency in Aramaic would necessarily be any more helpful than fluency in Greek to get certain of the ambiguities however.

 

[Shermana]

The Gospel accounts present different details of Jesus life and ministry, based on the writers audience and purpose. Still, they present a clear, consistent, and complementary history of the most important human who ever lived. Some accounts mention details omitted by the other gospel writers. The Diatessaron, completed about 170 C.E. shows that the four gospels, and only the four gospels, were accepted by the early Christians as inspired Scripture.

Okay, so when did Jesus heal the bleeding woman? What does the Diatesseron say?

 

[rusra02]

Okay, so when did Jesus heal the bleeding woman? What does the Diatesseron say?

I don't know what that book says. All three gospels agree it was when Jesus was on his way to cure Jairus' daughter.

 

[oldbadger]

Did Jesus first have dinner with everyone after getting back from Garasenes? Did he start heading "on his way" immediately while talking to them when the Synagogue leader approaches him?

Perhaps the Diatesseron can explain this...

The Diatessaron, although 1000 years late, was a very brave attempt to unify the chronology of the Gospels.

Now that would make a very interesting project today. I read your point about Luke and Matthew differing over the 'continuously bleeding woman', but (of course) I notice the greatest chronological differences between the synoptics and John. John's gospel really does bounce around, with Jesus involved in dashes between Galilee, Judea and other parts, without any strong reason shown for such nervous energy. And yet John seems (to me) to have so much information to offer, and with additional details.

You would probably be very successful at that, if you have the time. ....... a new unified chronology of all, that is.....

 

[oldbadger]

This really is not the case.

The gospels were written by Greek speaking residents of the Diaspora, for people in the diaspora.

Hi outhouse! ........... but they wrote down (in Greek) the stories about Yeshua that had been carried forward for decades by word of mouth in Aramaic, surely?

Not Amaraic speaking Jews in Galilee

The stories about Yeshua were carried forward in spoken and memorised Aramaic. No?

All the gospels are completely absent of tell tale signs on translations from Aramaic to Greek which are quite obvious

...... and (amazingly) the Aramaic translations that I have looked at include explanations of Aramaic words for Greek readers, which surely an Aramaic bible would never have been intended for! So...... no...... no Aramaic translations could have been first..... but the Aramaic words, spoken, memory to memory..... were the first words. Is that true?

 

[outhouse]

The stories about Yeshua were carried forward in spoken and memorised Aramaic. No?

Nope, not at all.

He was a failed messiah in Judaism who do not meet the qualifications in Judaism.


He found fame in Greek speaking residents of the Diaspora after his death.


There is only a small fraction of Aramaic transliterations which would be normal in the diaspora due to the multicultural people that inhabited it.

People like Paul spread the message, not real apostles hiding in Galilee so they wouldnt meet the same fate as their leader. Have you not noticed the complete lack of Aramaic in all of Pauls writing . Thats because there was no Aramaic oral traditions that we know about. None at all.

 

[outhouse]

If you want to posit that there was Aramaic oral tradition you would need to show evidence for it.

Too date, there is not a shred of evidence towards this, in fact, it is just the opposite. There is a compete lack of all and any evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

If you want to posit that there was Aramaic oral tradition you would need to show evidence for it.

Too date, there is not a shred of evidence towards this, in fact, it is just the opposite. There is a compete lack of all and any evidence.

on mobile.
not much evidence exists for anything.
but wiki on gospel oral trad does suggest that oral trad imo in Aramaic became the protogospels and then on to gospels.
Paul could write in Greek or Latin,but this cannot disprove Aramaic oral trad which carried story for two or three decades.
any good?

 

[Shermana]

If you want to posit that there was Aramaic oral tradition you would need to show evidence for it.

Too date, there is not a shred of evidence towards this, in fact, it is just the opposite. There is a compete lack of all and any evidence.

I thought you totally believed in Q.

 

[Shermana]

I don't know what that book says. All three gospels agree it was when Jesus was on his way to cure Jairus' daughter.

What they don't agree on is when Jesus went on his way.

 

[outhouse]

I thought you totally believed in Q.

I do. But it doesnt show the tell tale translation signs.

I think thi sorla tradition came from Greek speaking people who may have heard him at Passover, plus what they wanted him, or believed him to have actually said, more so then his actual words.

 

[oldbadger]

.................I think thi sorla tradition came from Greek speaking people who may have heard him at Passover, plus what they wanted him, or believed him to have actually said, more so then his actual words.

That's fine, but earlier you wrote:-
.................. you would need to show evidence ........: and: ...........There is a compete lack of all and any evidence.

We're all thinking and wondering, without much evidence! You think that the Jesus story came (mainly) from Greek-speakers who heard him at Passover, as he spoke, discussed, argued in Greek? Or maybe these people spoke Hebrew and Greek and listened to him speaking in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic?

And then they wrote about his life, explaining Aramaic words which they used? You think that the entire Jesus-story was built up from two or three days' of incidents at the Temple? But then, you have always suggested that he caused a rumpus and got executed, and chucked in a pit.... all quickly...... no 2-3 days about it.

And this caused complete strangers (to Jesus and his life) to go away and enthusiastically write about him?

Here are you're own words:-
.................. you would need to show evidence .............There is a compete lack of all and any evidence.