C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
--, “The Seventy-Four ‘Scholars’: Who Does the Jesus Seminar Really Speak for?”
G. Boyd. Jesus under Siege.
D. A. Carson, “Five Gospels, No Christ.”
E. Ferguson, Background of Early Christianity.
R. Funk, 'The Emerging Jesus.”
---,Forum EL
G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus.
C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.
I. H. Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus.
J. W. Montgomery, History and Christianity.
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. M. J. Wilkins andJ. P. Moreland. Jesus under Fire.
John, Gospel of. The Gospel of John is an important link in the argument for the deity of Christ and the truth of Christianity. Granting that truth is knowable (see Truth, Nature of), the overall argument can be abbreviated as follows (see Apologetics, Overall Argument of):
1. The theistic God exists.
2. In a theistic universe, miracles are possible (see Miracle).
3. Miracles in connection with truth claims are acts of God that confirm the truth of God claimed by a messenger of God (see Miracles, Apologetic Value of).
4. The New Testament documents are historically reliable.
5. In the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God.
6. Jesus proved to be God by an unprecedented convergence of miracles.
7. Therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh.
John’s Gospel speaks to the fifth premise, recording Jesus’s explicit claims to deity:
The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. (5:22-23)
I tell you the truth . . . before Abraham was bom, I am! (8:58)
I and the Father are one. (10:30)
Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (17:5)
Other claims to Christ’s deity are unrecorded in the Synoptics as they are in John (e.g., 9:35-38; 13;13-15; 18:6). Clear statements of an eyewitness apostle about Christ’s deity come from John:
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (1:1)
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (1:18)
Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus's glory and spoke about him. (12:39-41)
"My Lord and my God.” (the confession of Thomas to the risen Christ, 20:28)
Because these statements have no parallels in the other Gospels, negative critics have dismissed their authenticity. Apologists frequently avoid the issue by sticking to Jesus’s claims to deity in the Synoptics (e.g., Matt. 16:16-17; Mark 2:5-10; 14:61-65) and instances in which he accepted worship (e.g., Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:6; 15:19).
We cannot afford to bypass John entirely, however. If, as some critics claim, John created these sayings or does not accurately report them, the Gospel accounts are undermined, as well as the rich theological teachings found in John (see New Testament, Dating of; New Testament Manuscripts).
Arguments against Historicity. Several arguments are used against the authenticity of John’s record:
John Was Written in the Second Century. Therefore, an eyewitness could not have composed it. Allegedly, the writer put statements that attribute deity into the mouth of Jesus and his disciples.
If John had been written during the second century, that in itself would not make it unreliable. It is not uncommon for other records from antiquity—which critics accept—to be written centuries after the events about which they speak. The earliest life of Alexander the Great was written two hundred years later, yet it is used by historians as a reliable source of information. But there is no evidence that John was written so late. No testimonial or documentary evidence contradicts the explicit claims to be an eyewitness of what Jesus said and did. John records, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). In context, the statement clearly identifies the author as the apostle John. There is no evidence to the contrary, so the prima facie case for an authentic Gospel is strong.
That case is strengthened by the freshness and vividness of the book, which are lacking in ancient accounts from many years after the events they relate. Background explanation, personal detail, and carefully related private conversation (e.g., John 3, 4, 8-10, 13-17) betray the work of an eyewitness (cf. John 2:6; 4:6; 6:10; 12:3, 5). For example, John (5:2) mentions five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda. Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered this pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that pool did not exist in the second century, it is unlikely any second-century fraud would have had access to such detail about persons, places, geography, and topography.
Another charge by critics is that John is too different, both in events and in language, to be covering the same man and events as the Synoptic Gospels. Language issues will be discussed below. That the events differ proves too much. If John were written as long as a century after the Synoptics to promote a theological agenda, the tendency would be to refer to some of the same occurrences, simply filling them with new meaning. This does not happen. Yet there is overlap at the obvious points (the crucifixion and resurrection) and in other touchstone occurrences—Jesus walking on water, feeding the five thousand, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and particularly the last supper. There is no substantial difference among these accounts.
The second-century hypothesis received a fatal blow with the discovery in Egypt of the “John Rylands fragment” of the Gospel, which can be dated as early as 114. John was written in Asia Minor. If copies were circulating in a small town the other side of the Mediterranean by 114, the original was certainly a first-century work.
Tradition has placed John as the last of the Gospels to be written, sometime during the 90s. However, recent research into the *Dead Sea Scrolls has caused a few scholars to date John before 70, because of its affinity with Qumran (Guthrie, 261-62). Evidence particularly noted is the simplicity of language and the light-darkness motif so common in Qumran thinking (John 1:4-9; cf. 8:12). Even liberal scholars, such as John A. T. Robinson, dated John as early as 40-65 (Robinson, 352). This would place it within a decade of the actual events. This may be a bit too early, but it reflects what has been learned about the author’s firsthand acquaintance with the events recounted.
The first-century origin of John, while eyewitnesses were still alive, seems beyond serious dispute. This strongly suggests John’s historicity.
John Does Not Use Parables. John’s Gospel is distinctive in that it contains none of the parables so characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels. This is taken by some critics as evidence that John is a less trustworthy account. But given other similarities on essential events and teaching, it is difficult to see how the absence of parables proves that John’s report is untrustworthy. Nonetheless, four points can be made.
This is an argument from silence. Silence at this point proves nothing logically except that John chose to confine his writing to other matters. He may have done so deliberately, particularly if his was the last Gospel to be written. There is no reason why John should repeat material already available. With three other Gospels in circulation for twenty or thirty years, John’s purpose may have been largely supplementary. He was selective, noting that much more happened than could possibly be told (20:30-31; 21:24-25).
Jesus uses parabolic-type speech in John. Craig Blomberg observes that, although John contains no narrative parables, the book presents Jesus as fond of metaphors and figurative or proverbial language (Blomberg, Historicity of the Gospels, 158). Jesus identifies himself as the good shepherd who seeks to rescue the errant sheep (10:1-16; cf. Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7). Discipleship means servanthood (13:4-5, 12-17; cf. Luke 22:24-27). John introduces sowing versus reaping (4:37); the apprentice son (5:19-20a); slavery versus sonship (8:35); working and walking in the daylight (9:4;
11:9-10); the thief, the gatekeeper, and the sheepfold (10: l-3a); the growth of a grain of wheat (12:24); the vine and vinedresser (15:1-6); and the pain of a woman in childbirth (16:21; Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 158). Rather than showing that John’s report is not authentic, such parabolic expression connects the Jesus in John with the Jesus of the Synoptics.
The book covers different times and places. John relates more private conversations, whereas Jesus spoke in parables to the unbelieving crowd (Matt. 13:13-15). Events recorded are not found in the Synoptics. John deals with the early and late ministries of Christ, whereas the Synoptics deal largely with the middle and Galilean ministries. It is understandable that Jesus said things a little differently at different times and places, as does any good itinerant preacher.
John was reaching a new audience. The absence of narrative parables suggests that this preacher’s audience is not linguistically Semitic. John uses terms with almost universal religious appeal to minimize communication barriers (Carson, 46). This fits with a date of later than 70, when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and the Gospel was reaching a more diverse, non-Jewish audience.
Jesus ,s Sayings Are a Different Style. The assumption is made that any dissimilarity in style proves John creates rather than reports the words of Jesus. Logically, this does not follow. There are at least three other possible explanations for dissimilarities: (1) The Synoptics may be more accurate than John. (2) John may be more accurate than the Synoptics. (3) They both may be accurately reporting largely different events and some of the same events in different ways. Evidence supports the latter alternative.
The sayings are largely the same. If John is late and inaccurate, then why does he sometimes report Jesus’s statements in the same words as the Synoptics? John and Mark report that Jesus told the paralytic, “Take up your bed and walk” (Mark 2:11; John 5:8). Jesus’s words to the disciples who saw him walking on the water are, “It is I. Do not be afraid” (Mark 6:50; John 6:20). When Jesus appeared to the disciples, he said, “Peace be with you!” (Luke 24:36; John 20:19).
However, it is not necessary for reliable reporting to use the exact words, so long as the same meaning is conveyed. At numerous points the substance of what Jesus said is the same in John and in the Synoptic parallel. When feeding the five thousand, Jesus said, “Make the people sit down” (cf. John 6:10) and Mark says Jesus commanded them to “make them all sit down” (6:39). In John, Jesus defended the woman who anointed him with “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of my burial” (12:7). Mark records, “She has come beforehand to anoint my body for burial” (14:8). Of Judas’s betrayal Jesus said in John, “I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me” (13:21). Mark records, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me” (14:18). In John 13:38, Jesus said to Peter, “Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the cock crows, you will disown me three times!” Luke reads, “I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me” (Luke 22:34). Here John agrees with one Synoptic and Mark deviates, mentioning two, rather than three, crowings (Mark 14:30). In John 18:11, Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword away!” Matthew 26:52 reads, “Put your sword back in its place.”
John records specific teachings that closely resemble the Synoptic Gospels:
Jesus is the “Sonofman” (1:51; 5:27; 8:28; cf. Matt. 9:6; 16:13; 20:18; Mark2:10; 8:31; 10:45;
Luke 12:40; 19:10; 24:7, in all eighty occurrences).
Jesus taught with authority (2:18; 5:27; 10:18; cf. Matt. 7:29; 9:6; 28:18; Mark 1:22, 27; Luke
4:32; 5:24).
One must be born again to enter the kingdom of God (3:3; cf. Mark 10:15).
An abundant harvest awaits the laborers (4:35; cf. Matt. 9:37-38).
A prophet is without honor in his homeland (4:44; cf. Mark 6:4).
Jesus corrected Jewish tradition, especially about the Sabbath(5:9b-16; 7:22-23; cf. Matt.
12:1-13; Mark2:23-3:5; Luke 13:10-17).
Unbelievers will be judged according to their works (5:29; cf. Matt. 25:46).
Jesus has unique Sonship with God, including the right to call God Abba, Father (5:37; 17:11; cf.
Matt. 3:17; 18:10; Mark 14:36; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 23:46).
Jesus is the light of the world (8:12; cf. Matt. 5:14).
Jesus taught, in part, to harden hearts of those opposed to him (9:39; cf. 12:39-40; Mark 4:12;
8:17).
The good shepherd rescues his flock (10:1-16; cf. Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7).
The Father reveals the Son; no one knows the Father but the Son (10:14-15; 13:3; 17:2, 25; cf.
Matt. 11:25-27).
Jesus was tempted to abandon the way of the cross (12:27; cf. Mark 14:35-36).
Receiving Jesus means receiving the Father (12:44-45; cf. Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 10:16).
True discipleship means servanthood (13:4-5, 12-17; cf. Luke 22:24-27).
The disciple is not greater than his master (13:16; cf. Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40).
The Holy Spirit will give the disciples their message to authorities (14:26; 15:26; cf. Matt.
10:19-20; Mark 13:11).
The disciples will be expelled from synagogues (16:1-4; cf. Matt. 10:17-18; Mark 13:9).
The disciples will be scattered over the world (16:32; cf. Mark 14:27).
Christians have authority to retain or forgive sins (20:23; cf. Matt. 18:18; Blomberg, Historical
Reliability of the Gospels, 157-58).
Johannine-type passages are in the Synoptics. Matthew 11:25-27 records a typical Johannine-type passage that presents Jesus using the same straightforward, nonparabolic discourse that John attributes to him. In fact, it sounds so Johannine that, unless one knew it came from Matthew, the assumption would be that it came from John. Luke 10:21-22 also is in the Johannine style. Thus, the so-called Johannine style of Jesus’s sayings is not unique to the Gospel of John. Rather, it could represent an actual mode of speaking Jesus often used.
The “I Am ” Sayings of Jesus Are Unlike What Jesus Said in the Synoptics. Since the seven “I am” statements (4:26; 6:35; 8:12, 58; 10:9, 11; 11:25; 14:6) are exclusive to John, some claim it unlikely that Jesus said them, at least in that form
Actually, the sword of this argument cuts both ways. One could argue equally that the Synoptic sayings cannot be trusted because they differ from the Johannine statements. But it is not accurate to say that the Synoptics have no statements of Jesus using this implied identification with JHWH of the Old Testament. “I am he” (Gk. ego eimi) is based in the Old Testament proclamation of God to be God (cf. Deut. 5:6; 32:39; Ps. 46:11; Isa. 40-45, passim). In Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21-22, the Synoptics use a similar style of expression. Most explicit is Jesus’s statement to the high priest in Mark 14:62, “lam [the Christ].” In a demonstration of power approaching an epiphany, Jesus told the disciples, “Take courage! Iam he. Don’t be afraid” (Mark 6:50, emphasis added).
Also, where would John or the other authors get this remarkable form? Ancient apocryphal writers tried to make their style conformto a format that was accepted as genuine. No other known first-century religious leader used statements like these. The closest nonbiblical parallel comes from the Jewish Qumran Damascus Document. It states, “Seekest thou the God of Gods? I am He,” followed in the next chapter by, “I am He, fear not, for I am before the days were” (cited in Stauffer, 179; note how God makes similar statements in Ps. 46:2 and Isa. 43:1).
The content of John’s “I am” statements is implied in the Synoptics. Craig Blomberg has noted that all four Gospels depict a man whose words would last forever, who forgave sins, who related humanity’s destiny to himself, who demanded absolute loyalty, who offered rest for the weary and salvation for the lost, who promised to be with his followers always, and who guaranteed that God would answer prayers in his name (Stauffer, 166). The form’s use by Jesus in both the Synoptics and John reveals his self-claim to deity. As Stauffer argued, “‘I am He’—meant: where I am, there God is, there God lives and speaks” (ibid., 194-95).
Arguments for the general authenticity of John apply to the “I am” sections. There is no good reason to suspect that John and the Synoptics are not independently authentic. These sections agree in all major areas of overlap, often down to details. John also uses third-person statements like those more common in the Synoptics. In John 10:1-7, he obviously turns to first-person because his hearers don’t understand the meaning of his third-person illustration.
“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. ...” Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, Iam the gate for the sheep. ” (John 10:1, 6-7, emphasis added)
Jesus may have used the shorter, simpler style quoted by John on many occasions for emphasis or when the audience did not understand.
Since John stresses the antagonism of Jewish leaders to Jesus (see John5:16, 18; 7:1; 10:31, etc.), it is understandable that “I am” statements would occur in John.
There is no proof John created the seven “I ams” or the seven “signs” (miracles) by which John supported Jesus’s theme (cf. 20:30-31). Both were chosen for inclusion in the Gospel to make his point. It happens that there is no overlap of “sayings” in John with those in the Synoptics. Why should there be if he is consciously supplementing the already available Synoptics from the wealth of material that “even the world itself could not contain” (John 21:25)?
There is overlap between John and the Synoptics at some points, in particular the signs or miracles
Jesus performed. Jesus’s walking on the water and feeding the five thousand in John 6 and his resurrection in John 20 appear in the Synoptics with no significant variation from John’s accounts. If the book shows no inauthentic additions or exaggerations in reporting the signs of Jesus, there is no reason to doubt John’s reporting of what Jesus said.
Finally, it was John who wrote that Jesus promised divine activation of the memories of the apostles about “everything. . . [Jesus] said” (John 14:26; 16:13). If memories were supernatural ly activated by the Holy Spirit, there is no real problem understanding how the writers of the Gospels could closely reproduce what Jesus said decades later.
The Brevity of Jesus’s Sayings Shows That They Are the Words of John. Another charge regarding the style of Jesus’s discourse is that the brevity shows the work of a writer as well as a redactor. This overlooks that not all John’s accounts of Jesus’s words are brief (cf. John 3:3-21; 5:19-47; 6:26-58; 10:1-18). The upper roomdiscourse covers three chapters (John 14-16), rivaling the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew 5-7 in length. John 17 relates the longest prayer of Jesus.
On the other side, the Synoptics record brief statements of Christ. Matthew provides the pithy “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God, what is God’s” (22:21). Mark records, “Everything is possible for him who believes” (9:23), and Luke, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (4:4). Note such statements as Luke 18:27; 23:34, 43, 46.
Why should brevity be a sign of inauthenticity? One could just as easily use this argument to conclude that Lincoln never gave the Gettysburg Address. Obviously, there were times when Jesus spoke expansively and times when his words were crisp and succinct.
John shows careful attention to accuracy in Jesus’s words. He distinguishes what Jesus said (which the disciples usually did not then understand) from what the disciples later came to understand that he had meant. Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” John adds, “After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken” (John 2:19, 22; cf. 20:9). What Jesus actually said to John is distinguished from what the other disciples mistookhimto say (21:22-23). Other Gospels make the same distinction (cf. Mark 3:30). So the brevity of statements recorded in John is no sign that Jesus did not actually say these things.
The “Verily, Verily” (“Amen, Amen”) Statements Are Unique to John. Again, it is supposed by critics that John’s unique use of “Verily, verily” (KJV) in the mouth of Jesus indicates that Jesus never really used this form of emphasis (John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34,
51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18). This phrase is not used in the Synoptics, but “Verily, verily I say unto you” (John 13:38) has parallels in “Verily I say unto you” (Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30). The doubling may indicate emphasis (see Blomberg, Historicity of the Gospels, 159). The NIV 1984 “I tell you the truth” and the NKJV “Most assuredly” capture the idea of emphasis in a single phrase.
There is no reason to suppose that Jesus did not speak that way on occasion. Jesus’s discourses in John are generally at different times (early and late ministry) and in different places (Judea, rather than Galilee), and even to different people (e.g., the Samaritan woman would not have the same false political expectations of the Messiah as did the Jews—4:25-26 (see Carson, 58). John gives more private conversations than do the Synoptics. John records Jesus’s private discourse to Nicodemus (chap. 3), to the woman at the well (chap. 4), to the adulteress (chap. 8), and to the disciples (chaps. 13-16). During his ministry, Jesus avoided making explicit public claims to be the Messiah. Yet he did not hesitate to do so in private (4:25-26) and before the high priest (Mark 14:61-65). Jesus used speech appropriate to the occasion.
Some evangelical scholars suggest that John’s doubling of verily (“amen”) was for homiletic reasons. Behind this view is the contention that the Gospel of John was composed as a sermon (cf. 20:30-31). Thus, D. A. Carson argues (46). Accordingly, Jesus may have actually said “amen,” but John doubled it as a rhetorical device. While this is possible, it seems better to conclude that any doubling resulted from the writer’s desire to express for a reader an emphasis that only a listener could have detected in the tone of Jesus’s voice when he said it. Better yet, there is no reason why Jesus could not have actually said “amen, amen” on these occasions, just as John records. There are no parallel passages in the Synoptics that contradict this.
There Are Vocabulary Differences in John. Some 150 words of Jesus’s mouth in John are not found in the other Gospels (Carson, 45). Many of these are so general that Jesus should have said them as part of his normal discourse, if he used them at all. This is offered as evidence that John created, not reported, what Jesus said.
Such an argument neglects to take into account that any good communicator uses words to fit the occasion. And since it is generally acknowledged that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, there is room for a different word choice in Greek by the recorder as translator. All of this brings up a point that applies to various arguments about the Gospels’ quotations of Jesus. A discourse or dialogue may be reported verbatim or in a condensed version (Westcott, cxv-cxix). The style and purpose of reporting may vary. Carson notes, “At some point capturing the flavour of a discourse by including an array of verbatim phrases and quips may be important; at another, it may be far more strategic to zero in on the essential argument and outline it fairly, even if the language used is quite different from that of the original address” (46). Thus, many conservative scholars are willing to accept that not all Jesus’s statements may be preserved ipsissima verba (in the exact words) but only ipsissima vox (with the same meaning).
Tense and other grammatical markers also influence word selection, as Carson points out. If the “historic present” is used relatively frequently in narrative, but infrequently in the discourses, the pattern has been shown to give no support to current source theories that attempt to assign these sections to different redactors (Carson, 45).
The argument against the authenticity of these statements is a form of the petitio principii fallacy, that is, begging the question. The only reason there is a problem is because these different modes of expression found in John are not taken into consideration in determining what constituted Jesus’s style. But this begs the question by assuming that John’s expressions are not part of the authentic way Jesus spoke.
The Record and Order of Events Differ. Another argument against the reliability of John’s account is that the order of events is sometimes different. The vast majority of John 1-17 and 21 appears in none of the other Gospels, so relative sequence is not an issue.
John places the cleansing of the temple early in Jesus’s ministry (2:13-22), but it is placed late in the Synoptics (cf. Mark 11:15-19). Jesus was fulfilling prophecy when he attacked the buying and selling in the Court of the Gentiles. He was making a vital point about extending the kingdom to the Gentile world. So it is entirely possible that Jesus did this object lesson twice, once near the beginning of his work and again after he arrived in the city for his final struggle. This is supported by differences in the accounts. John does not speak of the open hostility of the temple leadership, as does Mark, who intimates that this final cleansing reinforced their intention to kill him, “for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching” (Mark 11:18). This antagonism from the authorities characterized Jesus’s later ministry. That he used the same Old Testament text to rebuke them should be expected, since he was confronting them over the same sins (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
None of the Gospels claim to be written in chronological sequence. Topical message, rather than sequence, orders the text. Within an overall chronology, if a pericope of the same event is placed in a different place, it may be serving a slightly different literary purpose. Matthew and Luke place the order of the three temptation events in a different order (cf. Matthew 4 and Luke 4). The argument that John’s sequence shows that it is a late and unreliable record does not follow. It could be supplementary material or written with different themes in mind. Regardless of sequence, the events that John shares with the Synoptics show considerable agreement in detail as noted by Blomberg {Historicity of the Gospels, 156-57):
In both, Jesus gives sight to the blind, raises the dead, and cures an official’s son at a distance (John4:46b-54; Luke 7:1-10 par.).
In both, Jesus defies traditional Sabbath law interpretations (John 9:6-7; Mark 8:23-25).
Both tell of Jesus refusing to work miracles simply to satisfy his opponents (John 6:30-34; Mark 8:11-13 pars.).
Both report attempts to arrest Jesus that fail (John 8:59; 10:39; Luke 4:29-30).
Both describe his friendship with Mary and Martha (John 11:20; 12:2-3; Luke 10:38-42).
In both, he is accused of demon possession (John 10:19-21; Mark 3:22).
In both, John the Baptist is the voice crying in the wilderness of Isaiah 40:3 and the forerunner of the Messiah (John 1:23; Mark 1:2-3 pars.).
John’s baptism with water is contrasted with the Messiah’s coming baptism with the Spirit (John 1:26-27, 33; Mark 1:7-8 pars.).
The Spirit anoints Jesus, as testified by the Baptist (John 1:32; Mark 1:10 pars.).
The five thousand are fed (John 6:1-15; Mark 6:32-33 pars.).
Jesus walks on the water (John 6:16-21; Mark 6:45-52).
Gerhard Maier lists additional similarities between John and Matthew (cited in Blomberg, Historicity of the Gospels, 159). This is particularly interesting since Matthew is usually viewed as the least similar to John by the critics.
Both use Old Testament quotations and announce their fulfillment.
Both record frequency, extent, location, and instructional nature of extended sermons of Jesus. Both share elaborate farewell speeches (the upper roomand Olivet discourses).
Both emphasize the private instruction of the disciples.
Both cite an evangelistic purpose, with the Gospel being offered “first to the Jew and then to all the Gentiles.”
John Has a Late Christology. An often-stated reason for rejecting John’s accuracy in reporting Jesus’s words is its supposed “late” and “highly developed” Christology, which stressed his full deity (for example, in John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:29). This objectionis based on an unjustified dialectical view of doctrinal development. Critics, following F. C. Baur, read a Hegelian (see Hegel, G. W. F.) developmental view into the Gospel record (Corduan, 90-92). They begin with the view that John must have been late, since his views were a synthesis of the earlier conflict between the thesis of Peter and the antithesis of Paul. But this thesis-antithesis view is itself indefensible.
Mark (held by most of these same critics to be the earliest Gospel) has deity claims by and about Christ. For example, when Jesus claimed to forgive sins, the Pharisees saw this as a claim of deity and responded, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). And when Jesus was asked under oath whether he was the Messiah (whom the Old Testament said would be God—Ps. 45:8; Isa. 9:6; Zech. 12:10), Jesus responded clearly, “I am And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). The reply clearly acknowledges his claim to be God, and the Sanhedrin used it to condemn Jesus of “blasphemy” (v. 64). Outside the Gospels, Paul’s Roman epistle (ca. 56), which is believed by many to be earlier than the Gospels, has a strong description of Christ’s deity, proclaiming him “God over all” (Rom 9:5).
Many of Jesus’s strongest deity claims come in the context in which he is challenged or confronted by the crowd. While this applies to both John and the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mark 2:7-10; 14:61-62; John 10:24, 30-33), John emphasizes the antagonism of “the Jews” (see John5:16, 18; 7:1; 10:31). It is understandable that he would pay special attention to the clear claims to deity.
It was not the primary purpose of the Synoptics to stress the deity of Christ. Matthew’s Jewish emphasis was on the long-awaited Messiah. Mark stressed Jesus as a servant (Mark 10:45). Luke stressed Jesus’s humanity. John’s express purpose was to show that Jesus was God incarnate (1:1,
14; 20:31). It is no surprise that there are more claims to deity in his Gospel. At the very climax of his Gospel, John reports that Thomas declared Christ’s deity, proclaiming him as “my Lord and my God” (20:28). If this is not accurate, then John is misrepresenting the central point of his book, that Jesus’s miracles led his disciples to recognize his true identity as God (see 20:28-31).
Conclusion. Arguments against the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus in John’s Gospel seem to be based more on a priori philosophical grounds than on actual historical and textual evidence. There are reasonable explanations for differences based on where, when, to whom, and under what circumstances Jesus spoke. Most of these are accounted for on the reasonable premise that John wrote a later and consciously supplementary Gospel. He deliberately avoided repeating what the other Gospels had said unless it was really important to the theme. As seen in the areas of overlap, the parallels of John to the Synoptic Gospels are substantial.
There is no real evidence in any of these cases that John is creating, rather than reporting, what Jesus said. To the contrary, John’s account is so fresh, vivid, private, detailed, and personal that it manifests an intimate, firsthand witness by the one writing it. There is reason to believe that John preserved the original words of Jesus or the same meaning if not the exact words.
The reasons for accepting the authenticity of John’s Gospel are as good or better than those supporting the Synoptics. All can be accepted in good conscience as historical. Matthew and Mark parallel Luke, and Luke discusses its own historiographical method and accuracy (see Acts, Historicity of):
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
If Matthew and Mark tell substantially the same story as Luke, then they are just as historically reliable as Luke. And if John’s parallel material does not deviate in substance from the Synoptics, the burden of proof is on the critics to show solid reasons why his testimony should not be taken as historically reliable {see New Testament, Historicity of).
John’s differences in language use from the Synoptics can be explained largely by location (Judean), date (early and late ministry), and nature (many private conversations). The “I am” claims can be understood as shorter, simpler statements Jesus made to those who did not at first understand him Indeed, the fact that John’s account is so intimate, fresh, and detailed argues strongly for its authenticity.
John’s link in the apologetic argument is one of the strongest in the chain Indeed, it is the only Gospel that claims to be written by an eyewitness apostle (John 21:24-25). Carson concludes, “It is altogether plausible that Jesus sometimes spoke in nothing less than what we think of as ‘ Johannine’ style, and that John’s style was to some degree influenced by Jesus himself. When all the evidence is taken together, it is not hard to believe that when we listen to the voice of the Evangelist in his description of what Jesus said, we are listening to the voice of Jesus himself’ (Carson, 48).
C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel.
--, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John.
W. Corduan, 'Transcendentalism: Hegel.”
R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.
N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics.
D. Guthrie. New Testament Introduction.
I. H. Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus.
J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament.
E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story.
R. L. Thomas and S. N. Gundry, eds.. A Harmony of the Gospels.
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1.
Josephus. See Flavius Josephus.
Joshua’s Long Day. See Science and the Bible.
Judaism. See Bible, Evidence for; Christ, Deity of; Prophecy, as Proof of Bible; Trinity.
Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr (100[?]-165) was one of the early second-century Christian apologists (see Classical Apologetics). He was born of pagan parents in Samaria. He embraced Christianity in 130. Later, he taught at Ephesus, where he engaged in and wrote Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. 130). Eventually, he opened a Christian school in Rome. There he wrote his First Apology (ca. 155). Second Apology (ca. 161) was addressed to the Roman Senate. His emphasis on Greek philosophy and reason has led some to wrongly conclude that he was a rationalist. Like other early church fathers, Justin believed in the inspiration and divine authority of Scripture.
Alleged Rationalism. Cited as evidence of his alleged rationalism is Justin’s statement that even Greeks who “lived a reasonable and earnest life” knew Christ the Logos {Apology, 2.8). He went so far as to say that Christ “is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably {meta logou) are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (1.46).
The Role of Reason. These citations notwithstanding, it is unwarranted to conclude that Justin believed that pagans could be philosophized into the kingdom. His critics misunderstand a subtle view of *faith and reason.
Justin stated emphatically that his faith was in Christ, not Socrates; it was in Christianity, not philosophy. He wrote, “And the right Reason [Christ], when He came, proved that not all opinions nor all doctrines are good, but that some are evil, while others are good” (ibid., 2.9). Justin believed Christianity superior to Greek philosophy, declaring, “Our doctrines, then appear to be greater than all human teaching. . . . For whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. But since they did not know the whole Word, which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves” (ibid., 2.10). Christian teachings “are more lofty than all human philosophy” (ibid., 2.15). Justin stated that no one trusted in Socrates enough to die for him, as they did for the teachings and presence of Christ (ibid., 2.10).
Like many other early Fathers, Justin believed that what truth there was in Greek philosophy was borrowed from divine revelation of Hebrew Scripture (ibid., 1.60). At best, Greek philosophy had only partial and dim truth, but Christianity had truth completely and clearly. Hence, “whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians” (ibid., 2.13).
View of Resurrection. Since Justin was so close in time to the apostles and since the resurrection is so crucial to Christianity, his view of the resurrection is of more than passing interest (see Resurrection, Evidence of).
Resurrection Is Possible. Against those who denied the resurrection, Justin confronted those who said they were believers yet thought it impossible that God could raise the dead. God, he said, had demonstrated his power in creating the first man, “for he was made from the earth by God. . . . But now we are demonstrating that the resurrection of the flesh is possible” (“Fragment,” 1.294-99). Justin declares, “Let the unbelieving be silent, even though they themselves do not believe. But, in truth, He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life. For where he promises to save man, there He gives the promise to the flesh” (Justin, On the Resurrection, chap. 8)·
A Physical Resurrection {see Resurrection, Physical Nature of). Justin admitted that there were those who maintained that Jesus had appeared only in a spiritual form, with only the appearance of flesh. Such people robbed Christians of a great promise (ibid., chap. 2). “If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life.” Otherwise, why did Christ rise in the body in which he had been crucified and let the disciples handle his body when they doubted? “And they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily” (ibid., chap. 9). Justin Martyr observed that Jesus also proved the possibility of flesh ascending to heaven, showing that the dwelling place of the physical resurrection body of Christians is in heaven. “The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live” (ibid., chap. 10).
Conclusion. The first apologists, like Justin, were not as systematic as such later apologists as *Thomas Aquinas. Nevertheless, Justin was far from a rationalist in his use of reason. He believed firmly in the superiority and necessity of divine revelation. However, there is no doubt that Justin, like classical apologists after him, used reason to explain and defend the Christian faith (see Classical Apologetics).