When the Books of the Bible Disagree

August 16, 2009, 10:09 am by dc-agape.

John 1:35 – 50

In the later part of the first chapter John describes how Jesus called his first disciples.  Notice that they are not called the Apostles they are his disciples.  One should also notice that the calling of Andrew and Simon are not the same as in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a direct contradiction, which one can say was two different perspective…but that would be a lie.  These are two distinct events that happened in two separate locations and at different times.  Let me explain more closely.

In the Gospel of John, the calling of Andrew and an unnamed disciple (John?) occurred the day after Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist at the site of the lower Jordan.  In fact, both Andrew and Simon were listening to John the Baptist (John 1:35-42).  And Simon (Peter) was brought to Jesus by Simon directly.  This is in conflict with the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke:

Mark 1:16-18 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fisherman.  “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”  At once they left their nets and followed him.

The two stories of Simon and Andrew are not the same and cannot be explained by different perspectives.  In the Gospel of John, Andrew told Peter after meeting Jesus.  In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus met both men at the same time.  In the Gospel of John, Simon was not fishing he was listening to (and possibly a disciple of) John the Baptist and Peter was not even there.  Now it is true that within a day Jesus could have walked from the lower Jordan to the Sea of Galilee, it is only about 65 miles.  Even the elevation change would make this an easy stroll: the Dead Sea (near where John was baptizing) is below sea level (at 1,349ft) and the Sea of Galilee is still below sea level (but at between 600-700 ft) elevation.  But the question is whether Jesus followed the river north (more like 200 miles for the river is not a straight line) or did he take the shortest route (as the crow flies).  Most people only walk at about 4 miles an hour; to make the direct trip would have taken Jesus 16 hours.  He most likely did not take the direct route and most likely stopped (or at least was slowed) by the people following him.  So the two stories do not match up.  I am sure a good apologist can explain this seeming gape in the Word of God.

Unfortunately, it is not that easy.  Before Jesus leaves for Galilee he meets Philip!  So as it turns out Jesus stayed in the region of the lower Jordan for at least two days.  Philip goes and finds Nathanael.  This is the only account of how Philip and Nathanael become disciples.  The Synoptic Gospels are silent on this passage and instead describe how James and John are called to follow Jesus.  This passage is left out of the Gospel of John, so no comparison can be made. 

Now as I pointed out earlier, a good apology is required to explain the different stories.  I am sure that I will receive one, but it cannot be the different perspective line.  It should also not be the “they remembered it differently”, because that would mean that only the Gospel of John is correct, since we are to assume that it is he that is the first disciple called!  Otherwise, one must assume that Peter was the first disciple called (from the Synoptic Gospels).  A third apology that I have heard is “the disciples all wanted to be the first, so they lied about who was called first”.  In this line of thinking, it is OK that they lie in the Word of God, because they were not saved yet!  But of course, Jesus had already completed his existence here on earth by the time these Gospels were written.  So the now called Apostles did lie, if one takes this apology.  In the end, one of the twelve had to be called first!  If the Gospels cannot determine who was first with clarity…the human fallibility at recalling the events of Jesus’ life are called into question.

And that is the crux of the Atheist’s view of the Gospels.  If they are eyewitness accounts the events should be similar both in time and location.  Slight variations can be accepted, gross errors (like the events at the end of John 1) are imperfections in what Christians claim is the “perfect” Word of God.  This then brings another apology: man wrote the Bible from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  In this apology, it is man’s fallacy that makes the errors and not YHWH.  But if we are to accept this apology, how do we know which parts of the Bible are true and which are “mistakes”.  Worse, we must interpret the Bible for ourselves…meaning that our own human “sinfulness” will corrupt the meaning of “true” parts of the Word of God.  The only acceptable outcome is to believe the entire Bible, with only literal interpretation.  Yet there are horrific inconsistencies, such as the end of Gospel of John chapter 1.  Many more exist that cannot allow the literal interpretation of the Word of God to be accurate.  So we are stuck with the Word of God is fallible (due to the writers and editors through time), we cannot determine which verses are “true” (due to our own “sinful” nature), and trusting another human to interpret for us only introduces the “sinful” nature of a different person.  Yet in the end, the only apology that can be used is “the Holy Spirit will guide the willing”!  This too has problems, for I have already posted on the subject of freewill and the Calvinist argument is a valid possibility.

Posted in Gospel of John, Contradictions, Inerrancy - My Ass, Freewill, Readings | Print | 4 Comments »