Sometimes the questions are asked, "Why are there four gospels, especially when three of them duplicate so much material? Why does the Bible include both the Chronicles and the books of Samuel and Kings when they cover so much of the same ground?" Where some might find unnecessary duplication, I see the value of perspective.
It is a strong biblical theme that truth is established by two or more witnesses. And, as is common with any testimony of witnesses, it is always interesting to see where their accounts agree and where they diverge. In the case of the synoptic gospels, we can learn a lot about each evangelist based on what they chose to include and how they tell the story. Mark's Gospel has a sense of immediacy (everything happens "immediately"), Matthew contains many reference to the Old Testament, and Luke has an abiding concern for the poor, the disenfranchised, and women. These are broad strokes, of course, but they do tell us about each man's concerns.
In the case of the Chronicler, we may learn some things about him (or them) based on what is included and what is not. In I Chronicles 20, a large section of the story of the life of David goes missing. When we follow the timeline n I Samuel, we hear the sad tale of Bathsheba and Uriah, and the trouble this brought on David's family. I Chronicles is also silent about the episodes involving Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom. Perhaps he simply felt all these details weren't necessary to include. Or perhaps he was focused on the "good side" of David's reign and did not want to besmirch the king's name by dredging up the dirty laundry of family troubles.
It is good to have side-by-side accounts of both the Chronicles and the books of Samuel and Kings, for we gain a valuable perspective from each author on what they included, and what they did not. We can get a balanced portrait of David, his better side and "his warts and all" when we take both approaches together.
No comments:
Post a Comment