In the November issue of the Testimony, F.B. “endeavored to dispose” of the critic’s contention that “because Matthew and Luke give diverse accounts of the raising of the Ruler’s daughter, this displays an obvious discrepancy”, by showing that two separate miracles were performed.
The original “discrepancy”, alleged to be discovered by the critics, lies in the fact that, whereas in Matt. 9 :18, “There came a certain ruler, and worshiped him, saying, ‘My daughter is even now dead . . .’,” in Luke 8 :41, “There came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue.” He had an “only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a-dying.” How could the records refer to the same occasion when in one instance the daughter is “even now dead”, and in the other “she lay a-dying.” ?
The idea that the records, so similar in so many ways, should refer to two different occasions seems distasteful, even absurd in fact. Theoretically, it must be admitted that the Gospel writers might have been recording the performance of two almost identical miracles, but are we sure that this is really a case of “discrepancy” ?
F.B. argues that the case for there being two different miracles is supported by the words used in the original for “ruler” and “daughter”. We are told that “although both passages are rendered ‘ruler’ and ‘daughter’, nevertheless, two entirely different Greek words are used in each case. For the ‘ruler’ in Matthew was a civic authority (Greek archon)… and his daughter a little girl, (Greek korasion), whereas in Luke the ‘ruler’ was an ecclesiastic (Gk. archisun-agogus)…………………. and his daughter, comparatively, a young woman (Gk. paidion).”
Using the Greek Text as set out in the Emphatic Diaglott, we find that the word used in Matthew for ruler is archon, and on looking up Luke we find that the same word is used for ruler, with “of the synagogue” added (Gk. archon tes sunagogus). Similarly in the Vulgate the word used for “ruler” is in both cases “princeps”. Thus the first point is disposed of, the same word for ruler being used in both Gospels. Mark’s is the Gospel which uses the word synagogue-ruler (Gk. archi-sunagogus), not Luke’s. If there still remains any doubt that the “ruler” of Matthew’s Gospel is a religious ruler, we can add that Nicodemus is referred to by the word “archon” in the phrase “a ruler of the Jews”, and he was no civic authority but a member of the Jewish Council (John 7 :50). Moreover, we find that this word “archon”, throughout the Gospels and Acts, is used of ecclesiastics rather than civic authorities (John 3 :1, etc.).
The words used for “ruler”, therefore, might quite well refer to the same person. But what of his daughter? The word “girl”, in Matthew, is translated from the Greek word korasion; in Luke, from the word paidion, as the writer indicates. In Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, both paidion and korasion are translated “child”, “little girl”, “maiden”, “damsel”. No distinction as to the age of the girl is indicated. If this were not enough, Mark’s Gospel comes to our aid. In his narrative he uses the word paidion in the phrase “father and mother of the damsel”, yet when he records the words of Christ, “Girl, I say unto thee arise”, he uses the word korasion. Surely it would not be urged that two different girls were healed in the same house?
Having disposed of the buttresses of the argument, however, the original difficulty still remains :—
“My daughter is even now dead.”
His daughter “lay a-dying.”
At this point it is interesting to compare versions, as shewn in chart on next page Whilst these translations all agree as to the sense conveyed by Luke’s Gospel, there is some slight divergence of view as to the exact meaning of the words in Matthew.
Perhaps it is here that the solution to the difficulty lies. Jairus, as his daughter lies dying, leaves his house post-haste to seek Jesus. He has been assured that his only daughter is beyond all hope of recovery. He comes to Jesus, “My daughter is at the point of death, is even now dead, but come and she shall live.” He assumes that by the time he has reached Jesus his daughter will have died, yet he has faith to believe in Jesus’ healing power. When he left the house truly she lay a-dying, but his apprehensive fears for her whom he loved were such that by the time he reached Jesus he was sure that she was “even now dead !”
Trench, in his book, Notes on the Miracles, writes “Thus they (Mark and Luke) make Jairus speak of her as dying when he came, which the latter facts of the history show to have been the more exact, Matthew as already dead. Yet these differences are not hard to adjust ; he left her at the last gasp ; he knew that life was ebbing so fast when he quitted her side that she could hardly be living now ; and yet having no certain notices of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, and thus at one moment expressed himself in one language, at the next moment in another ! It is singular enough that a circumstance like this, so taken from the life, so testifying of the reality of things recorded, should have been advanced by some as a contradiction between one Gospel and another.”
| Matthew | Luke |
| Revised | |
| My daughter is even now dead. | She lay dying |
| Weymouth. | |
| My daughter is just dead. | She was dying |
| Moffat. | |
| My daughter is just dead. 20th Century New Testament. | She was dying |
| My daughter. has just died. | His only daughter was dying |
| Diaglott. | |
| My daughter is by this time dead. | She was dying |
| Ferrar Fenton. | |
| My daughter is almost dead. | She was dying |
There are many cases in the Gospels where the same occasions are referred to, and yet identical words are not used (cf. the Demoniacs in the country of the Gadarenes, the inscriptions on the Cross, the Woman with the issue of blood). Surely faith must rise triumphant over small inequalities, seeing the greater truths that lie behind. Faith sees the Gospel writers not as making records of the life of Christ, as a gramophone record might have done, but as making living pictures of the Master’s work and teaching, that we, through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. If it had not been so, one Gospel would have sufficed. W. J. Dransfield.
Upon the same matter, but with special reference to the intermediate, or interrupting miracle, another reader writes :-
If we follow F.B.’s line of reasoning, we are to believe that four separate miracles were performed ; yet a pair of these miracles was recorded by three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, together, one interrupting the other in the selfsame place in each case. In each case also the woman had an issue of blood twelve years, and in each case touched Christ’s garments. There are further similarities, not only in this miracle, but also in the healing of the ruler’s daughter. In each case it is recorded that Jesus said to the woman, “Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole”, except in Mark’s account, where the words, “be of good comfort” are left out, and others are added after. In the case of the ruler’s daughter, in each case, Christ declared “The maid (in Mark, damsel) is not dead, but sleepeth”, and in each case it is recorded, “they laughed him to scorn.”
It seems to me that with all these similarities, sound, unbiassed reasoning protests that there are only two miracles. Matthew has merely recorded the incidents in less detail. In answer to F.B.’s four points of dissimilarity in the case of the woman with an issue of blood, I suggest :—
- —There is no reason to suppose that Jesus spoke before the healing was effected (Matthew’s account) since he addressed the same words to her as are recorded in the other Gospels, namely, “thy faith hath made thee whole.”
- —The woman was healed without any query, in all the accounts, since she was healed directly she touched Christs’ garment. This is evident in the accounts by Mark and Luke, since virtue went from Jesus, and is implied in Matthew’s, since Jesus said. “Thy faith had made thee whole.
- —It is not certain that there was no multitude pressing upon Jesus. It is not specially recorded, as in the other Gospels, but Jesus’ disciples were with him, and it is quite likely that many of the people were there also.
- —The falling down of the woman is not recorded, because, as has been suggested before, Matthew’s version is a briefer account.
With reference to the miracle which the one above interrupts, the only difference between Matthew’s account and that of the other two, decides the amount of detail which grows larger as we proceed from Matthew to Luke, is that in Matthew the ruler states, “My daughter is even now dead”, whereas in the other accounts she is only dying. But the ruler knew, when he left his house, that his daughter was on the point of death. Could not his words be understood to mean, “She must even now be dead”?
I do not know how much the theory of two miracles can be upheld by the assertion of two rulers and the differing ages of the daughters, but unless these points can be definitely established, there is little to back the theory.
It was not important to the record of the event, whether the man’s daughter died at this or that moment of time ; the man had faith that Jesus could raise his daughter, and according to his faith, it was unto him. C. G. Baseby.
As we go to press, yet another study of this subject reaches us from Canada. The writer says, in substance:—
The article by F.B. in the March issue, in answer to J.B., is unique in that he proposes a new line of defence against the “critic” who attacks the authenticity of the Scriptures and the harmony of the Gospels. Usually the “critic” is answered by proving that the discrepancy he alleges does not in reality exist. F.B. prefers to get rid of the alleged discrepancy in the Gospel accounts by increasing the number of miracles. Truly, if we could be satisfied that Matthew in this case is recording one miracle and Luke another, though a similar one, there would be no scope for argument.
Luke’s account, however, of the ruler’s daughter is not a record of a different miracle from that of Matthew’s account, and surely there is no need for so ingenious an explanation as that supplied. In Matthew we read of the ruler saying “My daughter is even now dead.” In Luke we have Luke’s own report of the occurrence stating that at this stage “she lay a-dying.” Later on, however, we read that the daughter now “was dead.” Apparently, as in the case of Lazarus, it suited the Master to permit death to intervene before displaying his marvelous resurrection powers. Here is no discrepancy but only such difference in reporting as can be easily understood.
Matthew, the eye witness of the miracle, confines himself to the facts of the death of the maiden, and her resurrection to life by Jesus. Luke, the physician, who wrote later, and from data supplied from authentic sources, gives a more detailed account, as perhaps might be expected from a medical doctor. He introduces the miracle of a dead person being restored to life by recording the detail that this rulers’ daughter was a very sick maiden ; in fact he writes “she lay a-dying”, and so prepares us for the news which came later (brought to the ruler by someone from his house), “Thy daughter is dead ; trouble not the Master.” It is interesting to notice, now, the way Matthew reports this matter ; “My daughter is even now dead”, as though Matthew, too, knew of the two stages reported by Luke ; first, that previously “she lay a-dying”………………….. but now, “she was even now dead.” Even Mark in his Gospel records the ruler as saying “my little thaughter lieth at the point of death.”
Then again, F.B. has to invent a new office ; that of a “civil magistrate”, in addition to that of the ruler of the Synagogue. Surely the ruler of the Synagogue could be described as a civil magistrate. The fact that Luke uses a different term (8 :49) from Matthew (9 :18) can be explained without resorting to the expediency used. In developing his argument F.B. here refers to the Greek originals. Reference to Young’s Analytical Concordance discloses these facts :—
- —Matthew 9 :18—”archon” is translated as “ruler”.
- —Luke 8 :41 —”archon” is translated “ruler of the Synagogue”. (In the Greek, Matthew and Luke use the same word “archon” in these verses.)
- —Luke 8: 49 — where reference is made to the same ruler, the Greek word is “archisun”.
- —Mark 5 :22, 35,36—the Greek word is also “archisun”.
If Young be an authority upon which one can rely, then F.B.’s conclusions are certainty not sustained.
Again in Matthew’s account we have the terms “daughter” and “maid” used interchangeably (Matt. 9: 18, 24, 25). But Luke in his fuller or more circumstantial account mentions also the daughter’s age as being 12 years and that she was the ruler’s only daughter. That a physician should have discovered by inquiry the “age” of a patient should not surprise us, and Luke describes her variously as “daughter”, “maiden”, and “maid”. I do not think that Matthew would have found any fault with Luke’s account of the same occurrence, if by any chance he had read it. I find myself, therefore, endorsing J.B. : “A closer examination of the immediate events destroys the whole line of reasoning, etc.”
In attempts to harmonize Scripture with Scripture or in dealing with Scripture in an explanatory or exegetical way, let us not merely keep our eye on the “enemy” and resort to such tactics as might in our opinion best serve to defeat him, but let us also consider how these methods may react. To dispose of the critic by the evasive device of increasing the number of recorded miracles may savour somewhat to some of casuistry, and I would regret the intrusion of this element.
The Solution