Apparent Chronological Problems in the Gospels - A quick glance at a side-by-side ordering of the gospel accounts is enough to reveal how closely the Synoptics follow each other as they recount the life and teaching of Christ. The relationship between these accounts has been, on the one hand, an assurance to believers of the historical validity of the Gospels. On the other hand, such comparisons have given rise to a multitude of questions about which Gospel was written first, whether subsequent authors borrowed from each other, and why there are differences in wording, style and order as the authors report the same events. All these issues form the Synoptic problem. Taken at face value, the Gospels seem to intend a sequential account of Christ's life: they progress through his birth, baptism, temptation, ministry, passion, death and then resurrection. A closer comparison of the order of their accounts reveals several points at which they differ over the sequence of events. Matthew places the healing of the centurion's servant before the disciples' controversial plucking of grain on the Sabbath and Jesus' healing of the man's withered hand. Luke, however, places the healing of the centurion's servant after these same events. Matthew places the clearing of the temple immediately following the triumphal entry, before the cursing of the fig tree. Mark places the clearing of the temple on the day after the triumphal entry and after the cursing of the fig tree. How are we to understand such apparent chronological problems? The goal of this paper is certainly not to attempt some broad solution to the synoptic problem. Rather, this paper will focus specifically on the question of whether apparent chronological discrepancies in the synoptic gospels threaten the doctrine of inerrancy. Can solutions be offered to these discrepancies? How should the believer in inerrancy harmonize these apparent sequential contradictions?
