New Testament is not chronologically accurate?

[WesleyF]

Consider this-

Jesus had met Peter at the sea of Galilee and called him to follow him (Mark 1:17-18). It should be noted that this calling of Peter happened before his mother-in-law was healed (Mark 1:30-31), if we assume the New Testament to give a chronological order of events.

However, Luke’s account gives the reverse chronology, i.e. Peter’s mother-in-law was cured first, in Luke 4:38-39 and later Jesus called Peter to follow him at the lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5).

If the lake of Gennesaret is not the sea of Galilee, I don’t have a problem. But I saw some websites that claim it is. So the New Testament is not chronologically accurate then?

 

[po18guy]

Chronological development of a story is a western tradition. It is my understanding that Hebrew tradition was more oriented toward content than chronology.

 

[Bookcat]

With out the time to look at the particular thing…

this will help

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402bt.asp

 

[Nita]

Consider this-

Jesus had met Peter at the sea of Galilee and called him to follow him (Mark 1:17-18). It should be noted that this calling of Peter happened before his mother-in-law was healed (Mark 1:30-31), if we assume the New Testament to give a chronological order of events.

However, Luke’s account gives the reverse chronology, i.e. Peter’s mother-in-law was cured first, in Luke 4:38-39 and later Jesus called Peter to follow him at the lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5).

If the lake of Gennesaret is not the sea of Galilee, I don’t have a problem. But I saw some websites that claim it is. So the New Testament is not chronologically accurate then?

From: newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm (Quotes Papias who knew and spoke to the Apostle John)

VI
[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. … but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. **Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s **sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]…

 

[NHInsider]

if we assume the New Testament to give a chronological order of events.

We should not assume that - none of the gospel writers make that assertion. We do know that only a fraction of the events of Jesus’ ministry are recorded. (Consider how many times Luke sticks in those little transition verses - variations on “He/they went from village to village teaching, and crowds of people came to be healed.”) We know that the gospels were written considerably after they happened (at or after the ends of the lives of the eyewitnesses) and that no one was keeping log books as Jesus and the disciples persued their itinterent ministries. Each of the gospel writers had a somewhat varying purpose in writing, and they wrote for somewhat varying audiences. They picked and chose from the material at hand, and presented it in a way that served that evangelistic purpose.

Even the so-called “contradictory” passages in the gospels are readily explained by the fact that you’re reading accounts written from the compiled memories of many different people, not transcripts of video recordings.