Is the Gospel of John reliable?

[Elijah John]

1) Is the Gospel of John a good, reliable account of the historical Jesus?
2) Did Jesus say everything in that Gospel that was attributed to him?
3) Without the Gospel of John, how can a person make a good case be made that Jesus claimed to be God?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 19 by Mithrae]

Yes, the rambling monologues do not pertain to the GoJ's authorship. I concede that. But they do pertain to it's reliability regarding a more accurate reflection of the historical Jesus, especially when compared to the Synoptics. Given the choice, isn't it more sensible to consider the earlier Gospels, the Synoptics, more reliable than the last one written, the Gospel of John, in light of the fact that the GoJ was penned by an aged eyewitness? Events, roughly 30 A.D. Gospel of John written roughly 90 A.D. At least sixty years after the events.

I'm not as concerned with the narrative, chronological discrepancies as I am with the theological ones. John's Jesus preaches a different theology, and has different speech patterns (like a different person) than does the Synoptic Jesus.

Are we closer to agreement or still talking past each other?

I think you're seeing a theological discrepancy which I'm not, at least in terms of your third OP question. As I pointed out in post #9, according to Matthew Jesus possesses all authority on earth and in heaven, will sit on a throne of his glory to judge the world and (unlike angels and prophets) voices no objection when he is worshiped. On the contrary, he tells his disciples go around "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," the most overtly trinitarian verse in the New Testament.

Even if we restrict ourselves solely to Mark - and solely to Jesus' own words rather than JohnB's abject self-abasement, God's proclamations of his beloved Son and the comments of Mark's other characters - we don't see a particularly different picture: Rather than clarifying that God is gracious and merciful Jesus declares that he himself has authority to forgive sins (2:10). He names himself Lord over the Sabbath, not only one of the Ten Commandments but one based on the very story of creation itself (2:28)! He declares his own importance to be so great that others should deny themselves and give up their very lives for his sake (8:34-35), and he says that his life is worthy of ransoming "many" (9:45). He places himself above all the prophets, distinguishing himself as the Son of God and the 'cornerstone' to His plans (12:1-11). He insists that one day he will come on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory and command over the angels to gather his chosen (13:26-27). He elevates a symbolic gesture for him as a holier act than helping the genuine needs of the poor (14:7), and he again claims that his is the "blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (14:24). Perhaps most tellingly, throughout the whole gospel and most pointedly in 14:62 Jesus repeatedly usurps the title of Daniel's "son of man," claiming as his own personal mantle that which Daniel said represented the everlasting power and dominion of all of God's holy ones (Dan. 7:14&27).

Even according to Mark, Jesus is not just a human prophet or human Anointed One: He may be secondary to God (as in many passages in John), but his claims are far greater than merely human. Moreover these are claims which for the most part were supposedly made somewhat openly to groups of Jewish hearers and published by Mark perhaps even before the start of the Jewish revolt. What did Jesus say to his inner circle in private, and what might they have felt more inclined to share with the world as their ties with Judaism grew looser and less socially convenient? John certainly places much more emphasis on his 'high' Christology, but it seems entirely misleading to imagine that Mark presented a 'low' Christology and indeed, with the possible, debatable exception of the single verse John 1:1, I can't think of any clear conflict between the two gospels' presentation of how important/exalted Jesus is. Jesus declaring his Lordship over the seventh day of creation and over the angels would make perfect sense - perhaps only makes sense - if "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."

[marco]

John was no exception, winding up in the Greek city of Ephesus according Polycarp via Irenaeus and perhaps Papias. Exactly when that might have been isn't clear... but even a year or two can be plenty of time for someone with the inclination and aptitude to become highly conversant in a new language.

Legend has it that Polycarp was taught by John, but if we read Acts 4 this might not have been such a blessing, if it ever was the case.

Acts 4:13
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; "

The uncomplimentary epithets are: ἀγ�άμματοί (agrammatoi) and ἰδιῶται (idi�tai),
which we can render as illiterate and thick. Obviously there are kinder synonyms. It would be something of a miracle if this same John launched into the stately prose that speaks of the logos in the beginning as being with God and God indeed. It may take only a year to acclimatise oneself with the basics of a language but to be able to write in quasi-philosophical terms would require a miracle. Granted, they were readily available then.

Where the synoptics take Jesus at his word and describe his parables, John rises above simple story telling. I believe he ignores the parables altogether except perhaps for the vine and branches bit, which is more a theological explanation that a simple story with a moral illustration. If John did write John, then Jesus did indeed exalt the humble, sufficiently so to have himself deified.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Mithrae]

Also, the common language of the region was Aramaic, not Greek. John was a "commoner". Is there any evidence that John was a Hellenized Jew? I know of none. Did he go on any missionary journeys with Paul?

Point of order. Though the common language was Aramaic, the educated language was Greek...
A little surprise for those of us who don’t remember that Alexander conquered the “world.�

[Mithrae]

Acts 4:13
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; "

The uncomplimentary epithets are: ἀγ�άμματοί (agrammatoi) and ἰδιῶται (idi�tai),
which we can render as illiterate and thick. Obviously there are kinder synonyms. It would be something of a miracle if this same John launched into the stately prose that speaks of the logos in the beginning as being with God and God indeed.

Luke/Acts might have been written by Luke, a gentile companion of Paul. But even Paul's story is trimmed to fit into his narrative structure, while various details of Jesus' infancy and ministry seem to be edited at will by the author. However you are claiming that not only 'Luke' himself, but Luke's telepathic description of how some Jewish elders from sixty years earlier perceived John is a sound historical basis on which to evaluate any other evidence of Johannine authorship?

Again, it's quite a marvel to me the kind of pretzel logic some folk feel inclined to use in the case of this fourth gospel Peter, Andrew, James and John had been fishermen from fishing families; presumably not very well educated, perhaps with some rough mannerisms and vernacular. It's not hard to imagine the wealthy, educate elites of society looking down with disdain on the hoi polloi and making assumptions about their intelligence. Luke's description of the event and the elders' perception may indeed be plausible enough, but accepting their prejudice as accurate would be an unjustified assumption on our part. We have far better evidence for supposing that John was bright enough to eventually learn passable Greek writing skills and put theological ideas into repetitive, rambling passages than we do for supposing that he was a complete idiot incapable even of that.

[Goose]

2) Did Jesus say everything in that Gospel that was attributed to him?

By and large I believe so. I have some good historical reasons to think that. But if Jesus did say every word attributed to him in that Gospel, I can't prove it.

I'm curious what your reasons are, even if they're conjectural.

One reason is that we can make a solid historical case that the Gospel of John has the authority of an eyewitness standing behind it. Generally speaking historical methodology recognizes an eyewitness account as more reliable than, say, a second hand account. Meeting the criterion of eyewitness is a sufficient to prima facie hold John as generally reliable. At least as generally reliable as any other ancient eyewitness account. From there, it would be incumbent upon the one arguing against generally reliability to make a case.

And to show that I'm not just fishing for things to pick on without giving anything up myself, I think that John's Gospel is historically unreliable.

But what you aren’t giving up is the objective historical method you use to come to this conclusion. Without providing that, we digress into pet arguments against reliability made in an historical vacuum. Arguments and reasoning that when applied to other ancient historical works lead us to hold similar views of unreliability. Thereby devastating much of ancient history.

In broad terms, John includes a number of stories that conflict with the Synoptics such that either John or the Synoptics must be unhistorical. Even if we don't insist on inerrancy-type accuracy, John's stories seem subject to more legendary embellishment than the Synoptics, which fits with the stories being later traditions.

But conflicting accounts and even embellishment do not necessarily imply non-history. Accounts can conflict simply because different people often report the same thing in conflicting ways for all sorts of reasons. Accounts can be embellished in the secondary details for literary purposes all the while retaining an historical core.

Your reasoning here if applied to other historical works would likewise render those works “unhistorical.� For instance, I could say the same about the accounts from Nicolaus of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius of Caesar’s assassination. They conflict and they embellish. One has Caesar speaking at the first blow, one has Caesar silent. One account has as many as eighty senators involved another only names a handful. They contain the supernatural and so on. Using your reasoning at least one of those accounts of Caesar must be unhistorical.

Mark and Matthew, for example, have a much more straightforward story of the call of the first disciples (Simon and Andrew were fishing and followed Jesus when he called to them). Luke (the latest of the Synoptics) has a modified tradition that includes a catch of fish (apparently adapted from the life of Pythagoras), while John's tradition has become a rather mystical dialog involving John the Baptist

This same pattern appears with the plot of the Sanhedrin (John turns the involvement of Caiaphas into a prophetic speech and include Lazarus to boot), the Last Supper (Matthew and Mark, simple prophecy of the bread dipping, Luke adds the argument over who was the greatest, and John embellishes with the whole feet washing, spiritual cleanliness thing) and the crucifixion (John changes the day so that Jesus is killed before the Passover with the other lambs). The Gospel of John seems to present a more advanced, more spiritual, and more polished set of traditions than any of the Synoptics. If John was an eyewitness or participant, I would expect that his own version of the tradition would have formed at the same time as the earliest of any traditions. Even if discussions with others suggested changes over time, I wouldn't think John the Baptist would be inserted as an intimate participant in a scene that he was apparently absent or that the Last Supper would change from the Passover meal to one that was merely "before the Passover." .

The theory is interesting but it’s undermined, if not outright falsified, every time John does not embellish when we would expect him to do so.

Take for instance the baptism of Jesus. All four Gospels have the spirit descending like a dove. The earlier Gospels all have a heavenly voice declaring, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� But John doesn’t even mention this additional heavenly voice detail let alone embellish on the earlier Gospels when this would seem to present an ideal moment if it were the case John was inclined to up the ante, so to speak, of the earlier Gospels.

Or take John’s account of the death of Jesus and discovery of the empty tomb in comparison to the other three earlier Gospels. No earthquake, no darkness, no tearing of the Temple veil, nor the rising of the Saints at the death of Jesus in John that we see in the earlier Gospels. Luke mentions two messengers at the tomb an increase from Mark’s lone messenger. If John were prone to embellish on the earlier accounts we would expect John to mention perhaps three or four or a whole host of angels at the tomb. But John mentions only two angels simply dressed in white. No shining garments (Luke) or countenance like lightening (Matthew).

If John was prone to embellish on the earlier three Gospels for theological purposes these are the very points (and others) we would expect him to do so. Indeed, John’s account of a Jesus’ baptism, death, and the discovery of the tomb seem somewhat blasé by comparison to the earlier accounts. It almost seems as though John was intentionally toning them down.

[Difflugia]

Speculation about multiple layers of redaction on an original, quite different Johannine work is basically the only reason I have seen or can imagine for invoking a Johannine school to attribute the gospel to.

My understanding of the "Johannine school" idea is twofold. Originally, the idea of a "school of thought" was based, first, on the observation that theological similarities exist between the Gospel, the Johannine epistles, and Revelation, that set them apart from the rest of the New Testament and second, that vocabulary and style argue against a single author.

Even within John's Gospel itself, though, there do seem to be a series of literary and redactional layers. J. L. Martyn sees "part of a very early sermon" in John 1:35-49. His reasoning is that the overall pericope seems to be based on expressions in which the disciples "find" and then "come to" Jesus (p. 148):

Verse 43 contains clear indications of editorial activity on the part of someone. There are vexing syntactical problems. There is moreover a structural problem which is created by verse 43. Elsewhere in this tightly knit pericope the present tense of the verb “to find� serves as the means by which the witness chain is continuously extended from John the Baptist outward (vv. 41 and 45; cf. 35 ff.). As it stands, verse 43 breaks this chain by allowing Jesus to be the subject of “he found.� Several explanations are possible, of course. In my opinion the most probable explanation is to identify the syntactical and structural problems as aporias introduced into the text by someone who edited an earlier tradition or source. In its earlier form verse 43 probably mentioned Andrew (or Simon) as the subject of “he found.� Thus the pericope originally portrayed Jesus in a remarkably passive role. He does not take the major initiative to call disciples. On the contrary, it is the others who find him.

We have, then, a situation where even if we posit one primary author, we still can see traditions that owe their existence to an established community. This situation would be similar to Paul's incorporation of creeds and hymns into his own epistles.

But while that's a possibility - the evidence suggesting Johannine authorship is fairly strong, but obviously far short of certainty - I simply haven't seen any convincing reason to consider it as likely as the more parsimonious view reported in history. Of course I'm not a professional scholar and I may well learn quite the opposite tomorrow

By "Johannine authorship," you mean written by the Apostle John, travelling companion of Jesus?

[Mithrae]

Speculation about multiple layers of redaction on an original, quite different Johannine work is basically the only reason I have seen or can imagine for invoking a Johannine school to attribute the gospel to.

My understanding of the "Johannine school" idea is twofold. Originally, the idea of a "school of thought" was based, first, on the observation that theological similarities exist between the Gospel, the Johannine epistles, and Revelation, that set them apart from the rest of the New Testament and second, that vocabulary and style argue against a single author.

That seems reasonable as far as it goes; I don't see any basis for supposing that John and 1 John had different authors, but obviously Revelation and 2 and 3 John are quite distinct in their content, length and authors' self-introduction.

Even within John's Gospel itself, though, there do seem to be a series of literary and redactional layers. J. L. Martyn sees "part of a very early sermon" in John 1:35-49.

I was actually considering a reply to your earlier comment on this passage, the suggestion that it shows signs of embellishment over the synoptics. I would say quite the opposite case might be made: All four gospels have John abasing himself in deference to Jesus, but in the fourth gospel John goes on to point some of his disciples in Jesus' direction and they bring in others (siblings, friends from their hometown etc.), with some questioning and expressions of doubt along the way. It's a presumably abridged and not very well written story, but fairly simple and plausible at least up to the responses of Nathanael and Jesus in verses 49-51. By contrast Mark etc. have people immediately and unquestioningly abandon their livelihoods to follow this apparent stranger who called out to them. Which if any version seems to be the product of greater legendary embellishment? Seems to me in many if not most such cases, it would be a highly subjective judgement call. Goose has raised some excellent points in that area also.

Even within John's Gospel itself, though, there do seem to be a series of literary and redactional layers. J. L. Martyn sees "part of a very early sermon" in John 1:35-49. His reasoning is that the overall pericope seems to be based on expressions in which the disciples "find" and then "come to" Jesus (p. 148):

Verse 43 contains clear indications of editorial activity on the part of someone. There are vexing syntactical problems. There is moreover a structural problem which is created by verse 43. Elsewhere in this tightly knit pericope the present tense of the verb “to find� serves as the means by which the witness chain is continuously extended from John the Baptist outward (vv. 41 and 45; cf. 35 ff.). As it stands, verse 43 breaks this chain by allowing Jesus to be the subject of “he found.� Several explanations are possible, of course. In my opinion the most probable explanation is to identify the syntactical and structural problems as aporias introduced into the text by someone who edited an earlier tradition or source. In its earlier form verse 43 probably mentioned Andrew (or Simon) as the subject of “he found.� Thus the pericope originally portrayed Jesus in a remarkably passive role. He does not take the major initiative to call disciples. On the contrary, it is the others who find him.

We have, then, a situation where even if we posit one primary author, we still can see traditions that owe their existence to an established community. This situation would be similar to Paul's incorporation of creeds and hymns into his own epistles.

Can we legitimately assume that the original author was as concerned about strict literary purity and consistency as J. L. Martyn? There are numerous possibilities here:
- That historically, Jesus did indeed take the initiative of going to Simon and Andrew's hometown to seek out the friend they'd told him about and John simply reported the facts
- That the story is partly/largely fictitious, but the author simply wasn't too careful about maintaining strict literary consistency
- That the story is partly/largely fictitious, but the author specifically wanted to indicate that it doesn't all go in one direction, that Jesus seeks his followers just as they should seek him
- That the hypothetical original story did only have others seeking Jesus and it was later changed somehow, as Martyn suggests

There's little reason to doubt the first option, but likewise no reason to suppose it true. However of the other three, I would say the last is the least parsimonious and therefore, lacking any evidence, the least plausible. (It's also worth noting that the invitation to "come and see," which I've always considered the most distinctive repetition in the story, is made first by Jesus then by Philip.) But even if it was true that in an original version the 'finding' all went in one direction, I still don't see how that hypothetical story would need to be some kind of sermon in an established community; on the contrary, if it were a sermon then the hearers had already found the community, were already there and seeing. Rather, the invitation to "come and see" would make much more sense as a story crafted specifically for a written work, sent out into the world to attract anyone who would indeed then need to take the initiative of coming to see. There's no reason to suppose that would require a communal effort.

But while that's a possibility - the evidence suggesting Johannine authorship is fairly strong, but obviously far short of certainty - I simply haven't seen any convincing reason to consider it as likely as the more parsimonious view reported in history. Of course I'm not a professional scholar and I may well learn quite the opposite tomorrow

By "Johannine authorship," you mean written by the Apostle John, travelling companion of Jesus?

Yes.

[marco]

Again, it's quite a marvel to me the kind of pretzel logic some folk feel inclined to use in the case of this fourth gospel Peter, Andrew, James and John had been fishermen from fishing families; presumably not very well educated,

The assumption that poorly educated people could become proficient in another language and write philosophic paragraphs not on homely stories of Jesus but on seemingly gnostic ideas is rather silly, and maybe that's what you mean by "pretzel logic."

An intelligent person can gain enough language skills to communicate; and one can even read text in the original, but composition in another language is always hard. A few notable writers have done it, but they started off being highly intelligent. Lucid, philosophical writing in another tongue is incredibly difficult - try it! - and when attributed to hoi polloi we are dealing in perhaps pancake logic, if that's the right street currency for this discussion.

[marco]

One reason is that we can make a solid historical case that the Gospel of John has the authority of an eyewitness standing behind it.

That's a curious thing to say. fSomeone pretending to be John would give details that suggest he was an eye witness. A rather astonishing fact is that John alone recounts the story of the raising of Lazarus. Surely this astounding event would not have been overlooked by the others, were it true. It has the merit of pushing claims for Christ's divinity. John also includes the disputed "woman taken in adultery" tale that seems to place Jesus in conflict with the law.

In Acts we learn John is uneducated and perhaps stupid. To push the claim that John was the author we have to ignore this statement yet it is what we might expect of a humble fisherman. What we would not expect is the gospel of John.

[Mithrae]

The assumption that poorly educated people could become proficient in another language and write philosophic paragraphs not on homely stories of Jesus but on seemingly gnostic ideas is rather silly, and maybe that's what you mean by "pretzel logic."

An intelligent person can gain enough language skills to communicate; and one can even read text in the original, but composition in another language is always hard. A few notable writers have done it, but they started off being highly intelligent. Lucid, philosophical writing in another tongue is incredibly difficult - try it! - and when attributed to hoi polloi we are dealing in perhaps pancake logic, if that's the right street currency for this discussion.

You might be seeing more depth and philosophical sophistication in comments like "I am the gate of the sheep" than I do. I don't find the fourth gospel to be lucid writing at all, at least in English translations; it's full of stunted phrases/sentences and repetitive, rambling paragraphs of many words and little content.

• John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.â€�

What great and lucid philosophical depths do you see there, I wonder, and how is it any different from an author taking pains to make sure his relatively simple ideas are not misunderstood by simply repeating them in a few different ways? Jesus is a 'good' shepherd, was it? And he... don't tell me... does he lay down his life?

And in the original, as I've already pointed out, John's Greek is among the most Semitic/vulgar in the NT, alongside the likes of Mark and Revelation - so his efforts to ensure he was not misunderstood may well have been necessary! Your reasoning seems fallacious on both counts, both praise for the content of the gospel and disdain for the intelligence of those not well-educated in childhood, and while I'm surely open to correction on the former the latter will never be sound; even if only one in a thousand fishermen ever achieve literacy in a foreign language, that does nothing to change or refute the actual evidence suggesting that John was one of those few.