There is no reconciling these very different accounts if we read the Bible as history, as a reference work filled with accurate (from a modern, western point of view) information. We are left with deciding that one of the accounts in accurate and the other wrong. But that poses insurmountable problems for most Christians, and so some resort to elaborate notions of some pristine biblical text that has been lost, while the Bible we now have has been corrupted in some way in its transmission down through the centuries.
To my mind, a much more fruitful line of thought is to realize that the biblical writers weren't trying to pass down history. The New Testament was written for communities of Christians, not to convert non-Christians. The writers weren't trying to tell people the story of Jesus, but to help them better understand its significance.
In the case of John's gospel, his story of Andrew and Simon Peter becoming disciples is his way of explaining how John the Baptist fits into Jesus' story. John the Baptist was very well known and still had his own disciples long after his death. All four gospels understand John's work to in some way prepare the way for Jesus, but each of them explains this is somewhat different ways, with the fourth gospel being strikingly different.
Most all Christian I know want to be spiritual people. We know that faith and communion with God are not things to be acquired by normal, worldly means. So why do we insist on treating the Bible as though is were a worldly book rather than a spiritual one? The truth of the Bible is not ahistorical. It is rooted in real, historical events. But receiving its truth is not a matter of having all the right information. It is a matter of letting the Bible open us to God.
Click here to learn more about the Daily Lectionary.
No comments:
Post a Comment