Beware Extrabiblical Whizbang

I was studying John 4:1-26.

As usual, at some point in the process, I consulted a few commentaries.

I was surprised to find two significant disagreements on two mundane details of the text.

Disagreement One

“And he had to pass through Samaria” (John 4:4, ESV).

• Commentary One: “In Jesus’ day the Jews, because of their hatred for the Samaritans, normally took the eastern route in order to avoid Samaria” (p. 284).
• Commentary Two: “The route normally followed by Jewish travellers heading north from Judea to Galilee passed through Samaria. Geography therefore dictated that Jesus had to go through Samaria when he embarked on the three-day walk to Galilee. The only alternative was to cross the Jordan near Jericho, travel north up the east bank (the Transjordan) through largely Gentile territory, and cross back to the west bank near the Lake of Galilee. Popular commentators have sometimes insisted that the longer route through the Transjordan was the customary route for Jewish travellers, so great was their aversion to Samaritans… Josephus, however, provides ample assurance not only that the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans was strong, but also that Jews passing from Judea to Galilee or back nevertheless preferred the shorter route through Samaria (Ant. xx. 118; Bel. ii. 232; Vita 269)” (pp. 215-216).

Disagreement Two

“Jacob’s well was there; so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour” (John 4:6, ESV).

• Commentary One: “It was about the sixth hour, which according to Roman time reckoning would have been 6 P.M.” (p. 285).
• Commentary Two: “Jesus arrived at Jacob’s well about the sixth hour, almost certainly about noon (beginning the count about sunrise…)” (p. 217).

Beware

Commentators often differ in their interpretations of a text. That is unsurprising. But you must understand that commentators also often disagree on the cultural-historical facts around the text.

This point cuts in two directions…

When you hear a skeptic critique the Bible, remember their critique may be standing on a series of shaky facts and assumptions about those facts.

When you hear your favorite podcaster, vlogger, or Bible guru say some historical tidbit you have never heard of is the key to unlocking the text, they might just be quoting the one weird commentary.

Is there any solution to this problem? I would suggest this: Stay close to the text. You will typically find all the details you need right there. Remember, the Bible was written for public consumption. (Even the letters had that in mind.) And so, the author often tells you exactly what you need to know. This is how writers write. They say what they want you to know. So that little extrabiblical fact might shade the meaning a hue, but it won’t change the color altogether.