One of the most puzzling questions regarding the gospel of John is why is it in some ways similar to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), but yet in many ways entirely different. These differences and similarities are well documented in many sources[1]. Stanton points out numerous differences: in John, there are 3 journeys to Jerusalem; John contains many extended discourses rather than the parables of the Synoptics; no exorcisms are present in John’s Gospel; the ‘I am’ sayings of Jesus (Jn 4:26, 6:35, 8:12, 58, 10:9, 11, 11:25) are unlike what Jesus said in the Synoptics, and there is no institution of the Lord’s Supper in John. He also points out various similarities including some 10 passages that occur in the same order in both Mark and John[2], and the close verbal similarity of the Greek text in some passages (Mk 14:3-9 and Jn 12:1-8).[3] Dunn reveals a more significant difference when he points out the major difference in content between the Synoptics and John. In the Synoptics, the content of Jesus’ teaching is predominantly focused on the Kingdom of God, whereas in the Gospel of John, it is much more focused on Jesus himself.[4]
Carson, Moo, and Morris mention several more differences: namely, the resurrection of Lazarus, and the confession of the Jesus in John 1 compared with the confession at Caesarea Philippi in Mark 8[5], but also reveal numerous similarities between the Synoptics and John. They point out the Spirit’s anointing of Jesus as testified by the Baptist; the feeding of the 5000; walking on water; and many partially parallel sayings such as Mt 9:37-38 and Jn 4:35, Mk 6:4 and Jn 4:44, Mt 25:46 and Jn 5:29. Furthermore, there are the subtle parallels through metaphors, particularly metaphors using nature, and finally, Jesus’ sense of Sonship to God.[6]
Many attempts have been made over the years to explain both the similarities and differences between John and the Synoptics. One such explanation belongs to the Jesus Seminar. They have a tendency to date the gospels very late (at earliest 70 to 100, and in some arguments much later), so that they can create enough time between the events and the recording for eyewitnesses to die off and a mythology to develop around Jesus. Thus they can say that 84 percent of the sayings of Jesus were invented later.[7] This of course means that they have no problem reconciling the differences, because they argue that none of the Gospels was historical in the first place.[8][9]
Bishop John Shelby Spong argues in a similar vein when he writes:
The Gospels, far more than we have thought before, are examples of Christian midrash. In the Gospels, the ancient Jewish story would be reshaped, retold, interpreted, and even changed so as to throw proper light on the person of Jesus. There was nothing objective about the Gospel tradition. They were not biographies. They were designed to inspire faith.
To force these narratives into the straightjacket of literal historicity is to violate their intention, their method, and their truth. To see them as expressions of the genre called midrash with a Christian twist is to enter Scripture in a new and perhaps life-giving way.[10][11]
However, Geisler and others[12] have shown extensive evidence for earlier dates for the gospels, citing manuscript evidence from the early second century, and also pointing out that the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, and there is strong evidence for dating that book no later than 60-62 AD.[13] Geisler goes on to say that it has been demonstrated that even two generations is too short a period to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact. Even with the late dates given by the Jesus Seminar and others, they do adequately support the view that the gospels are mythological. Consequently, unless they can prove contradiction between the Gospels, their argument is unsubstantiated.
So the link between the Synoptics and John cannot be reconciled simply by saying that none of them is true. An important consideration therefore, is whether one was used as a source for the other(s). Most scholars agree that John was the last gospel written, and so the question must be asked: did John use any of the Synoptic Gospels to help write his? This is where the exact dates of writing become important. If John wrote his gospel within several years of the composition of the Synoptics, then it is unlikely that there is any dependence as there would not have been the opportunity for him to do so. However, John is normally dated in the late 60s at the earliest (a strong argument can also be made for the mid 80s), therefore allowing time for him to read the other Gospel accounts. In particular, if Mark relied on Peter for his material, it is very difficult to believe that John would not have read his account. Morris points out, however, that there is very little evidence for literary dependence. Although the timing makes it very probable that John had read at least one of the Synoptics, internal evidence within the Gospel suggests little or no dependence on other sources that we can be certain of.[14][15]
Geisler extensively details some of the differences between the Synoptics and John in order to show that the differences are not as unreasonable as they first seem.[16] For example, John contains the “I am” sayings of Jesus that are unlike what he normally says in the Synoptics. However, these are also present (to a much lesser degree) in the Synoptics. In Mt 11:25-27 and Lk 10:21-22 the Synoptics use a similar style of expression, and most explicit is Jesus’ statement to the high priest in Mk 14:62, “I am [the Christ]”. In addition, 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 do not 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, I am the gate for the sheep”. (Jn 10:1, 6-7).
Any attempt to dismiss parts of John or the Synoptics on the grounds that they are dissimilar to each other must also answer the following charge: since it is probable that John had read one or more of the Synoptic Gospels before writing his own, it is very possible that he deliberately chose to complement them, and only duplicates some major events. John himself claims twice that he was only selective in those actions and words of Jesus that he recorded (Jn 20:30-31 and Jn 21:25). It seems perfectly reasonable that he consciously chose to record parts of Jesus’ ministry that were not covered by the Synoptics. In addition, when we consider that the Holy Spirit was at work through the gospel writers, should it really surprise us that the Spirit would illuminate and remind John of those important words of Jesus that had not already been reported?[17]
Dunn proposes three broad categories for explanations for the differences between the Synoptics and John.[18] The first is wholly historical which he dismisses because of the difficulties resolving issues such as the “I am” sayings in John. The second is wholly theological, which is thrown out because there are claims within the Gospel itself that it records some of what Jesus did, and because of the many historical references within it.[19]
Dunn’s conclusion, therefore, is that correct approach is a theological elaboration of history. He claims that the discourses in John are meditations or sermons on typical episodes in Jesus’ ministry and on particular teachings of Jesus. He puts forward three arguments for this conclusion:
- The discourses of John’s Gospel are constructed around themes and grow out of particular episodes.
- The style of John’s Gospel is also the style of the letters of John (for example, John 8 and 1 John 3).
- The use of the term ‘The Jews’ instead of the Pharisees, and the statement in Jn 9:22 that anyone acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ was to be put out of the synagogue. The Jews included a statement to this effect in their creed sometime after the fall of Jerusalem.
Although I would not accept an interpretation of John’s Gospel that claims that it is simply a historical narrative (John himself admits an ulterior motive – he is trying to produce faith in his readers), I do reject any view of the Gospel that doubts its historicity. Dunn’s conclusion appears to say that some of the discourses recorded in John did not actually happen, but were used by John to communicate a certain teaching of Jesus. However, I do not think that Dunn has adequately backed up this hypothesis. While it is very possible that John used his sermon notes to write the Gospel, and possibly consolated teaching on similar topics (as the Synoptics do as well), it does not follow that the historicity of the Gospel is in doubt. His arguments against a historical reading are mainly due to the different style present in the Synoptics and John. However, we have already noted that this can be explained if John was deliberately complementing them.[20] His arguments for the theological elaboration view are also fairly flimsy. (1) does not seem to advance his case at all. It can readily be seen how Jesus would have used those particular episodes to start teaching about a particular theme. The similar style between John and 1 John can explained by remembering that to accurate quote someone, particularly in Greek literature, the exact words are not needed. One only needs to paraphrase and provide the point they were trying to make. Since John did write this, the words credited to Jesus are likely to have his style about them, but are still unlikely to have been corrupted by his influence. So (2) is unconvincing. Finally, (3) does not prove anything. Even assuming the argument is valid, all it may show is that John wanted to show the conflict between Judaism and Christianity clearly, but it does not prove that the events did not actually take place – John may just emphasise the conflict that was already present. In short, (3) merely may illuminate another one of John’s goals in writing the gospel, but does not disprove its historicity.
There is a logical principle known as Occam’s Razor, which says when faced with multiple explanations for the same truth, the simplest one should be selected unless there is a good reason not to. This applies here. John’s Gospel is written as though Jesus was actually involved in those discourses with the people mentioned. John twice states that he wrote about what Jesus did[21], not that he made up some events to show what Jesus taught. There seems no valid reason to doubt him here. In our court system, someone is innocent until proven guilty. John should be given the same treatment. His statement of what happened should be taken as true until proved otherwise, not vice versa.
[1] Geisler, Norman L.; Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books; 2000, pp 388-395 (John, Gospel of).
[2] Morris comments on these 10 passages in part of the introduction to his commentary on John, saying that of the 10 passages, only the similar order of two of them (feeding the 5000 and Jesus walking on water) is of any significance. The fact that the order of the remaining passages is the same is not particularly relevant because with most of them, there is no way the events could have occurred in a different order (for example, Jesus’ death must precede his resurrection). Morris, Leon; The Gospel According to John; The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 1995; pp 43-45.
[3] Stanton, G.N.; John’s Gospel: ‘I Am the Way’; The Gospels and Jesus; Oxford University Press; 1989; pp 102-124.
[4] Dunn, J.D.G.; Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God?; The Evidence for Jesus; London SCM; 1985.
[5] The confession of Jesus in John 1 appears very dramatic and immediate unlike the slow buildup leading to the confession of Peter in Mark 8.
[6] Carson D., Moo, D., and Morris, L.; John’s Relation to the Synoptics; An Introduction to the New Testament; Zondervan Publishing House; 1992; pp 160-66.
[7] The Jesus Seminar uses a voting system among their liberal scholars to determine which of the statements of Jesus should be regarded as accurate. However, they place too much weighting on hypothetical documents and Gnostic sources, and as Geisler points out, truth is not determined by majority vote.
[8] Veitch, Dr James; The Birth of Jesus: History or Myth?; St Andrew’s Trust; 1997; pp 10-12.
[9] Funk, Robert W., Hoover, Roy W., et al; The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus; Harper San Francisco; 1997.
[10] Spong, John Shelby; Born of a Woman: A bishop rethinks the birth of Jesus; Harper San Francisco; 1992; pp 18-20.
[11] David H. Lane in Redefining God In Man’s Image III (published in Apologia Vol 7, edited by David Lane, pp 41-50), shows that Spong’s allegations of midrash in the gospels cannot be justified. He quotes New Testament scholar N.T. Wright who makes the following points:
- Proper midrash consists of a commentary on an actual biblical text, not just a fanciful retelling of it.
- Real midrash is tightly controlled and argued (unlike Spong’s claim that the imagination is freed to roam and speculate).
Midrash never included the invention of stories to evoke awe and wonder, or to invent all kinds of new episodes about recent history in order to advance the claim that the Scriptures had been fulfilled.
[12] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie; New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?; Intervarsity Press; 1984.
[13] Geisler, Norman; Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books; 2000; pp 91-96 (Bible, Evidence for), pp 4-8 (Acts, Historicity of), pp 386-388 (Jesus Seminar). Geisler further notes that 1 Corinthians is dated even by critical scholars around 55-56 AD, and it speaks of the historicity of the most crucial events in the Gospels: the death and resurrection of Christ. This would place it within a quarter century of Jesus’ death.
[14] Morris, Leon; The Gospel According to John; The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 1995; pp 49-54.
[15] Carson, D., Moo, D., Morris, L.; John’s Relation to the Synoptics; An Introduction to the New Testament; Zondervan Publishing House; 1992; pp 160-166.
[16] Geisler, Norman; Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books; 2000; pp 388-395 (John, Gospel of).
[17] John also wrote that Jesus promised divine activation of the memories of the apostles about “everything… [Jesus] said” (Jn 12:26, 16:13). If their memories were supernaturally 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. Although this argument is not of much use from an apologetics point of view (it is circular reasoning if we are using it to prove that God exists), it because important as soon as we admit revelation from God.
[18] Dunn, J.D.G.; Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God?; The Evidence for Jesus; London SCM; 1985.
[19] Examples include “Aenon near Salim” (Jn 3:23), and the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7). The best is the five porticoes around the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2).
[20] Geisler argues quite extensively for the historicity of John in: Geisler, Norman; Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books; 2000; pp 388-395 (John, Gospel of).
[21] Jn 20:30-31 and Jn 21:25.
Comments
serious privilege of john and synoptics.