In previous articles, I have discussed the evidential value of Luke-Acts to the case for Jesus’ resurrection, conversion of Paul, and other miracles recounted in Acts. In this essay, I will explore the evidential significance of the gospel of John to the case for Christianity — with a particular focus on the argument for the resurrection, other miracles performed by Jesus (such as the resurrection of Lazarus) and the Christological Trilemma. As foundation for these arguments, I will first lay out the case that the author of the fourth gospel is an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry (and, by extension, purportedly an eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection, other miracles, and divine self-claims). The evidence bearing on these contentions is quite vast, and to do them justice would require a book length treatment. Nonetheless, I hope that the sample provided here is sufficient to give the reader a sample of this case. Because I have needed to be selective with the material covered in this essay, I will not address all objections or counter-points that may be raised. I will, however, address a selection of objections to John’s gospel where I deem to be relevant or necessary. It is my hope that this essay will provide a taste of just how extensive the case for the reliability of the fourth gospel is, and a sense of the strength of the argument for the identification of its author as John the son of Zebedee. Having laid out this case in some detail, I will turn to how these points may be synthesized into multiple lines of argument for the truth of Christianity.
The Gospel of John was Written by an Eyewitness
The Author Claims to be an Eyewitness
The gospel of John appears to identify the author as the disciple whom Jesus loved. In John 21:24, we read, “This [the beloved disciple] is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” One might object (as many do) that this verse is better read as indicating that multiple authors are in fact distinguishing themselves from the beloved disciple (hence, “we know that his testimony is true”). But if this sentence is distinguishing the author of those words from the beloved disciple, then just those two verses may be a tiny coda to the book, referring to everything else in the book, which was in fact written by the beloved disciple. So those two verses may be written by an anonymous person (or persons) authenticating the rest of the book, rather like when an amanuensis suddenly speaks up in a Pauline epistle and sends his greetings: “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22). A similar statement is made in John 19:35: “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe,” (earlier in this chapter, in verse 26, the narrator indicates that the beloved disciple was standing by the foot of the cross). Moreover, the author explicitly claims elsewhere to have been an eyewitness of Jesus’ public ministry. In the epistle of 1 John (which is generally recognized as having been composed by the same author as the fourth gospel), the author states (1 John 1:1-3):
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Notice the careful distinction in this text between “us” and “you.” Thus, he is not simply talking in general terms about humanity having looked upon and touched with our hands the word of life. Rather, he is claiming to be a member of a special group who physically interacted with Jesus during his earthly ministry.
External Confirmations
1. Can anything good come out of Nazareth?
In John 1:46, upon hearing from Philip that “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph,” replies, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” In a similar vein, it is said by the Jewish leaders to Nicodemus in John 7:49, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” These statements reflect the Jewish prejudice against Galileans, which is particularly evident in Tract Erubin in the Babylonian Talmud (which engages in extensive derision of Galileans. Here is an excerpt (b. Erub. 5) [1]:
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: The children of Judæa who paid strict attention to the words of their masters and propounded many questions retained all they learned. The Galileans, however, who did not pay strict attention to the language of their masters, and did not question them, did not retain anything. The Judæans learned from one master, hence they remembered what they learned; but the Galileans had many teachers and in consequence they did not retain anything.
Rabhina said: The Judæans taught every tract they had themselves mastered to others; hence they retained their knowledge; because teaching others improves one’s own learning; the Galileans, however, did not do this and in consequence their knowledge forsook them.[…]
R. Jose the Galilean was travelling on the road. He met Brurih (the wife of R. Meir) and asked her: “Which way must we take to the city of Lud?” She answered: “Thou Galilean fool! Did not our sages say, that thou shouldst not converse much with a woman? Thou shouldst have asked, which way to Lud?”
The woman’s phrase “Galilean fool”, in this text, reflects the Talmudic stereotype that Galileans were less precise in speech than Judeans. The more concise form, therefore, would have been more in alignment with the rabbinic ideal of minimizing conversation with women.
Joseph B. Lightfoot remarks [2],
Owing to the fact that St John lays special stress on the Judæan ministry, the references to the Galileans in his Gospel are less numerous than in the Synoptic narrative. But the notices, though few, are highly significant, and the touches with which St John depicts them, singularly vivid. Thus we cannot fail to observe the contempt which the Jews of the metropolis display for them. ‘Shall Christ come out of Galilee?’ ‘Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet’ (7:41, 52). ‘Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ (1:46). Such is the objection, which rises unpremeditatedly to the lips of speakers, when the northern province is indicated as the home of the Messiah. This disparagement of the Galileans is reflected more than once in the rabbinic literature of the period. ‘Foolish Galilean’ seems to have been the inevitable form of address when a Galilean appears as a character in a dialogue. This contempt arose in great measure from the admixture of foreign blood in the Galilean people. The Sea of Galilee was an important commercial centre, and as a natural consequence strangers—Phœnicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans—settled in the district, and intermarried with the Jewish inhabitants, to the prejudice of the race in the eyes of a strict Jew of the capital (see Keim I. p. 309). The distinction thus inaugurated by the taint of foreign blood was further emphasized by a difference of pronunciation. The rough dialect of the northerners, which was a subject of comment in the case of St Peter (Mark 14:70), is a favourite theme likewise in rabbinical writers.
John does not explain the cultural significance of these statements, even though it would most likely have been lost on his readers in Asia Minor.
2. Forty-six years
According to Luke 3:1, Jesus began his public ministry “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio all place the beginning of Tiberias’ reign during the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius (Annals 1.7; Life of Augustus 98; Historiae Romanae 56.29). Suetonius also specifies that Augustus, at the time of his death, was “seventh-six years of age, wanting only thirty-five days,” (Life of Augustus 98). [3] The age of Augustus at death is also confirmed by Cassius Dio (Historiae Romanae 56.30). These indicators all place Augustus’ death quite precisely in the year 14 C.E, and these sources consistently indicate that Augustus died on the nineteenth day of August. Thus, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar would fall in about 28 or 29 C.E.
In John 2:20, after Jesus says to the Jews “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” referring to his death and resurrection, the Jews retort that “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” According to Josephus, Herod the Great began construction work on the temple in “the eighteenth year of his reign” (Antiquities 15.379). [4] Since Herod the Great began to reign in 37 C.E., this would fall in 20 or 19 B.C. Forty-six years from this date is approximately 27 or 28 C.E. There is some degree of flexibility, however, since some time was taken to make preparations for Herod’s building project. Indeed, Josephus indicates that there was a concern among the people that Herod “would pull down the whole edifice, and not be able to bring his intentions to perfection for its rebuilding; and this danger appeared to them to be very great, and the vastness of the undertaking to be such as could hardly be accomplished,” (Antiquities 15.11.2). [5] Josephus continues [6],
…while they were in this disposition, the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely again. And as he promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand wagons, that were to bring stones for the building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skillful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for as many of the priests, and had some of them taught the arts of stone cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this not till everything was well prepared for the work.
Nonetheless, that these dates provided by Luke and John, when related to the information supplied by Josephus together with the Roman historians, correlate so closely is a striking confirmation of the narratives in both of these gospels.
3. The Samaritans and their temple
John 4:1-45 recounts Jesus’ encounter with the woman of Samaria at Jacob’s well. The woman says to Jesus, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship,” (Jn 4:19-20). In agreement with this, Josephus states that the Samaritans “assembled themselves together upon the mountain called Gerizzim, which is with them a holy mountain,” (Wars 3.7.32). [7] In verse 22, Jesus makes a particularly odd statement: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” What is the subject of Jesus’ cryptic allusion in this verse? Once again, Josephus may shed some light. He writes of the Seleucid Tyrant, Antiochus Epiphanes’ march against Jerusalem, and the actions undertaken by the Samaritans to secure their own safety (Antiquities 12.5.5) [8]:
When the Samaritans saw the Jews under these sufferings, they no longer confessed that they were of their kindred; nor that the temple on Mount Gerizzim belonged to Almighty God. This was according to their nature, as we have already shown. And they now said that they were a colony of Medes and Persians: and indeed they were a colony of theirs. So they sent ambassadors to Antiochus, and an epistle, whose contents are these:— ‘To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians, who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent plagues, and as following a certain ancient superstition, had a custom of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sabbath. And when they had erected a temple at the mountain called Gerizzim, though without a name, they offered upon it the proper sacrifices. Now, upon the just treatment of these wicked Jews those that manage their affairs, supposing that we were of kin to them, and practiced as they do, make us liable to the same accusations, although we are originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation and from their customs; but let our temple which at present hath no name at all, be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed, but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to thee.” When the Samaritans had petitioned for this, the king sent them back the following answer in an epistle:— ‘King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians, who live at Shechem, have sent me the memorial enclosed. When, therefore, we were advising with our friends about it, the messengers sent by them represented to us that they are no way concerned with accusations which belong to the Jews, but choose to live after the customs of the Greeks. Accordingly, we declare them free from such accusations, and order that, agreeable to their petition, their temple be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius.’ He also sent the like epistle to Apollonius, the governor of that part of the country, in the forty-sixth year, and the eighteenth day of the month Hecatombeon.
Thus, in order to appease Antiochus and secure their safety, the people of Samaria offered to dedicate their temple to Jupiter, the Latin equivalent of the Greek God Zeus. This offer was accepted by Antiochus and he therefore passed through Samaria in peace. Is it any wonder, then, that Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, “You worship what you do not know”?
One may object to this example since these events transpired more than two centuries before the time of Jesus and it was likely that this was widely known at the time, presumably leading to ‘bad blood’ between the Jews and Samaritans as a result. Thus, one might argue, John’s readers would have been expected to immediately understand the reference. However, it seems that it would have been quite improbable that these events would have been widely known to John’s audience, which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. John’s gospel was probably composed later than the other gospels and likely after the fall of Jerusalem. The book was almost certainly written in Ephesus in Asia Minor, and it thus seems quite implausible that John would have faked this subtle reference on the assumption that his own audience would recognize it. For Jesus to assume that the woman at the well would understand the allusion would be more probable, from an historical perspective (rather like some sort of subtle cultural reference that someone might make to an audience now that would require people later to dig in order to understand).
4. Jesus discloses his identity
Another interesting feature of this episode is that the Samaritan woman is the one individual in the gospels (outside of his inner circle) to whom Jesus personally discloses His Messianic identity and does not tell her to keep it to herself. In verses 25 and 26, we read, “The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am he.’” Throughout the synoptic accounts, Jesus often sternly warns people not to publicly disclose his identity or speak publicly of His miracles (e.g. Mk 1:43-45; Mk 8:27-30). In scholarly circles, this is known as the “messianic secret.” We also see Jesus frequently seeking to avoid large crowds. Those features of Jesus’ behavior are illuminated by John 6:15, which immediately follows the account of the feeding of the five thousand, in which we read, “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” Given the popular Messianic expectation of an individual who would overthrow the Roman occupiers and re-establish a Davidic reign, Jesus naturally feared that public disclosure of His Messianic identity would result in misunderstandings and attempts by the crowds to make him king by force. Thus, John 6:15 explains the Messianic secret in the synoptics. But why does Jesus disclose His public identity to the Samaritan woman in John 4:26? And why does he not charge her to secrecy, as He does with so many others? Later Samaritan documents explain that their view of the Messiah (whom the Samaritans called the Taheb, or restorer) was different from that of the Jews, and was largely informed by Deuteronomy 18:15-18, which speaks of the Messiah as a prophet like Moses (the Samaritans only accepted the books of Moses as Scripture). Some evidence also indicates that the role of the Taheb included teaching. Jesus therefore had no reason to worry that the Samaritans would misunderstand his claim to be the Messiah, and expect him to lead a military revolution against Rome.
5. Rivers of Living Water
The seventh and eighth chapters of John’s gospel are set during the Jewish feast of booths (Jn 7:2). In John 7:37-39, we read,
37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
In John 8:12, we further read, “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’” Nothing in John’s gospel explains the historical background to these sayings. However, in the Babylonian Talmud, we read of the following practices that were associated with the feast of booths (b. Sukk. 5) [9]:
He who has not witnessed the rejoicings at the water-drawing has, throughout the whole of his life, witnessed no real rejoicing. At the expiration of the first holiday of the festival they descended into the women’s court, where a great transformation was made. Golden candelabra were placed there, with four golden basins at the top of each; and four ladders were put to each candelabrum, on which stood four lads from the rising youth of the priesthood, holding jars of oil containing 120 lugs, with which they replenished each basin. The cast-off breeches and belts of the priests were torn into shreds for wicks, which they lighted. There was not a court in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the lights of the water-drawing. Pious and distinguished men danced before the people with lighted flambeaux in their hands, and sang hymns and lauds before them; and the Levites accompanied them with harps, psalteries, cymbals, and numberless musical instruments.
Thus, apparently a ceremony that was associated with the feast of booths was a water drawing ceremony. Indeed, the previous chapter in the same Talmudic tract also indicates that water was taken from the pool of Siloam, and poured over the alter in the temple (b. Sukk. 4). Moreover, the water drawing ceremony appears to have been associated with a festival of lights, where many candelabra were lit. This, then, illuminates Jesus’ statements in John 7:37-38 and 8:12. It also closely aligns with the way that Jesus is reported to have taught elsewhere, where he is observed to frequently draw his teachings from the occasion, surroundings or environment. Yet, John never explains the historical background — in spite of the fact that he elsewhere explains the Jewish background, customs and practices for the sake of his gentile readers (Jn 2:6; 4:9; 5:2; 6:4; 11:55; 19:40). Lydia McGrew concludes [10],
We have to keep remembering that this ended in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem. Though some scholars argue that John’s Gospel was written before the fall of Jerusalem, I take the view that seems to fit better with the evidence of the church fathers, namely, that it was written in John’s old age, after the fall of Jerusalem. By that time there would have been no water drawing from Siloam and no altar in the Temple on which to pour the living water. Jesus’ dramatic call to those who are thirsty to come to him and drink and receive a spiritual river of living water makes sense in the light of the customs of the time. Yet it’s almost impossible to picture a fictionalizing author “putting” such an allusion into Jesus’ mouth without referring in any clearer way to the ceremony. If John made up what Jesus said here, why not describe the ceremony to make the connection clearer? It is unlikely that everyone in his own audience would think of the water-pouring and lights ceremonies, especially Gentiles and any Jews who were too young to remember the original ceremony. Within the Gospel of John, Jesus’ choice of this metaphor and the association with the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles is unexplained, subtle, and not literary at all. John writes like someone recording events, not like a literary craftsman who invents to further his own themes.
It may also be noted that Jesus’ statement, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink,” bears resemblance to Matthew 11:28: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The similarity between these two sayings, across different sources, reflects the turn of mind of the same historical person lying behind the two accounts.
6. Solomon’s Portico
In John 10:22-23, we read, “At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.” Notice that John gives a very specific time reference, in indicating that it was winter. This is the sort of detail that one might be expected to be impressed upon the memory of an eyewitness. Moreover, John records that “Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon,” which was a roofed cloister on the east side of the temple. This portico is also described by Josephus (Antiquities 20.9.7) [11]:
These cloisters belonged to the outer court, and were situated in a deep valley, and had walls that reached four hundred cubits [in length], and were built of square and very white stones, the length of each of which stones was twenty cubits, and their height six cubits. This was the work of king Solomon, who first of all built the entire temple.
Josephus notes elsewhere that the cloisters in the outer temple court were roofed (Antiquities 15.11.5; Wars 5.5.2). The description and dimensions provided by Josephus of Solomon’s colonnade indicate that it would have provided shelter from the elements of winter — making it a fitting place for wintertime teaching.
7. Giving to the poor
In John 13:29, as Judas Iscariot is leaving the Passover seder to betray Jesus, we read, “Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, ‘Buy what we need for the feast,’ or that he should give something to the poor.” This fits with the historical background. It was customary on seder night to give alms to the poor to ensure that they were able to partake in the Passover feast. According to the Babylonian Talmud (b. Pesah. 10) [12]:
On the eve of any Passover it is not lawful for a person to eat anything from the time of Min’hah (afternoon prayer) until after dusk. Even the meanest in Israel shall not eat until they have arranged themselves in proper order at ease round the able; nor shall a person have less than four cups of wine, even if they must be given him from the funds devoted to the charitable support of the very poor.
This text indicates that there was, in fact, a custom or legal obligation to ensure that even the very poor could participate in the Passover Seder, including provision of the four cups of wine, even if it required support from charity funds. A similar text can also be found in the Jerusalem Talmud (m. Pesachim 10:1) and the Tosefta (t. Pesahim 10:1). In fact, the gates of the temple were left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there (Antiquities 18.2.2).
8. High priest that year
According to John 18:13, “First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,” (emphasis added). John also uses similar language in 11:49. In Jewish law, the office of the high priest was held by its occupant until death — that is to say, it was a lifelong occupation. Why, then, does John indicate that Caiaphas was “high priest that year”? Josephus informs us of the deposition of Annas from the office of high priest in 15 C.E., by Valerius Gratus (the predecessor of Pontius Pilate as prefect of Judea). Caiaphas was appointed shortly after and served between 18 and 36 CE under Pontius Pilate. Josephus writes (Antiquities 18.2.2) [13],
He [Tiberius] was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. (34) This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest: which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; (35) and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor. [emphasis added]
Although Annas was deposed, many Jews still recognized his authority, which is why both Annas and Caiaphas are called “high priests” in the New Testament (Lk 3:2; Acts 4:6). Josephus, in fact, uses a similar construction to refer to two later high priests — Jonathan and Ananias (not to be confused with Annas) — as well (Wars 2.12.6). Annas retained the prestige and influence of the role, while Caiaphas held the official Roman appointment. As for John, the evangelist highlights that Caiaphas was high priest the year of Jesus’ death. This aligns with the evidence that the high priesthood, while intended as a lifetime appointment under Jewish tradition, became a more politically managed and sometimes shorter-term office under Roman rule, as revealed by frequent appointments and removals by Roman governors.
9. No friend of Caesar
n John 19:12, we read of the taunt of the Jewish crowd against Pontius Pilate, when Pilate had sought to release Jesus, against the will of the crowds:
12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”
The first century Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, gives an account of a previous episode, which may illuminate why this was a sore point for Pilate, in which the Jews had complained to Tiberius Caesar about certain shields that Pilate had had erected in Jerusalem, resulting in Tiberius having written a sharply worded letter to Pilate demanding that the shields be removed (Embassy 299–305) [33]:
I can quote in addition one act showing a fine spirit. For though I experienced many ills when he was alive, truth is dear, and is held in honour by you. One of his lieutenants was Pilate, who was appointed to govern Judaea. He, not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude, dedicated in Herod’s palace in the holy city some shields coated with gold. They had no image work traced on them nor anything else forbidden by the law apart from the barest inscription stating two facts, the name of the person who made the dedication and of him in whose honour it was made. But when the multitude understood the matter which had by now become a subject of common talk, having put at their head the king’s four sons, who in dignity and good fortune were not inferior to a king, and his other descendants and the persons of authority in their own body, they appealed to Pilate to redress the infringement of their traditions caused by the shields and not to disturb the customs which throughout all the preceding ages had been safeguarded without disturbance by kings and by emperors. When he, naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness, stubbornly refused they clamoured, ‘Do not arouse sedition, do not make war, do not destroy the peace; you do not honour the emperor by dishonouring ancient laws. Do not take Tiberius as your pretext for outraging the nation; he does not wish any of our customs to be overthrown. If you say that he does, produce yourself an order or a letter or something of the kind so that we may cease to pester you and having chosen our envoys may petition our lord.’ It was this final point which particularly exasperated him, for he feared that if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty. So with all his vindictiveness and furious temper, he was in a difficult position. He had not the courage to take down what had been dedicated nor did he wish to do anything which would please his subjects. At the same time he knew full well the constant policy of Tiberius in these matters. The magnates saw this and understanding that he had repented of his action but did not wish to appear penitent sent letters of very earnest supplication to Tiberius. When he had read them through what language he used about Pilate, what threats he made! The violence of his anger, though he was not easily roused to anger, it is needless to describe since the facts speak for themselves. For at once without even postponing it to the morrow he wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea on the coast surnamed Augusta after your great-grandfather, to be set up in the temple of Augustus, and so they were. So both objects were safeguarded, the honour paid to the emperor and the policy observed from of old in dealing with the city.
Philo’s account thus provides a backstory that illuminates why the taunt of the Jewish crowd, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend,” was such a sore point for Pilate and why it led to him acquiescing to the crowd’s demands that Jesus be crucified.
A further piece of background information that is of relevance here is that Pilate was appointed to replace Valerius Gratus as prefect of Judea in 26 C.E., when Sejanus (commander of the Praetorian Guard) was wielding significant control over the empire while Tiberius was on the island of Capri. Sejanus, however, was later accused of a plot in 31 C.E. and consequently put to death (Josephus, Antiquities 18.181–250; Juvenal, Satire 10.67–72; Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae 58.9–11). Tiberius became suspicious of those who had been associated with Sejanus. This shift would have directly affected Pilate, who now had to navigate carefully to avoid any appearance of disloyalty to Tiberius. By the time of Jesus’ trial (around 33 C.E.), Pilate was politically vulnerable. Again, this sheds light on Pilate’s reluctance to oppose the Jewish leaders and his eventual decision to crucify Jesus, despite his stated belief in Jesus’ innocence. Pilate may have feared that any unrest reported to Rome would endanger his position or life, especially if it suggested he was mishandling affairs in Judaea or sympathizing with a potential “king” against Caesar .
10. The Roman Quarternion
In John 19:23, we read, “When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic.” The Greek historian Polybius informs us that a Roman “guard consists of four men,” (Histories 6.33) [14]. Notice how casually, and incidentally, John mentions that Jesus’ garments were divided into four parts and distributed to the soldiers. Joseph B. Lightfoot comments [15]:
Again, the scene of the Crucifixion furnishes St John with another opportunity of showing his intimate knowledge of Roman military customs. A quaternion (τετράδιον Acts 12:4) of soldiers, as we learn from Vegetius and others, was usually employed as a watch on night duty, or for purpose of escort. Now, it is noticeable that, when the other Evangelists speak of the guard which attended at the Crucifixion, no number is given. It is simply stated (Matt. 27:35, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:34), that the soldiers divided the Saviour’s garments among them. St John however gives the actual number. But observe how incidentally the fact comes out. He makes no mention of a quaternion: he merely says, ‘Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part.’ The information is not paraded in any way; it is involved in the narrative.
Undesigned Coincidences
What follows are ten examples of undesigned coincidences in the gospel of John.
1. Destroy this temple
In Mark 14:56-59, we read of a false testimony that was brought to the high priest, Caiaphas, at Jesus’ trial: “For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’’ Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.” This does not appear to be a whole cloth fabrication on the part of the witnesses who testified against Jesus — in particular, in view of the specificity of the reference to three days, in addition to the fact that they could not even agree on what precisely Jesus said. It appears as though this is a garbled version of something that Jesus said. Nothing in Mark, however, provides a pretext for this allegation. In the context of first century Judea, this allegation was quite a serious one. And, yet, the reader is left hanging as to what Jesus really said. This is an unexplained allusion in Mark, itself a hallmark of verisimilitude in its own right. In John’s gospel, however, we read about a challenge that was brought to Jesus by the Jews, in the wake of the temple cleansing towards the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry: “So the Jews said to him, ‘What sign do you show us for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,'” (Jn 2:18-19). John interprets Jesus’ words to pertain to his own resurrection from the dead (Jn 2:21-22). Note, though, that Jesus never said anything about destroying a manmade temple and rebuilding it in three days but not by human hands. John reports Jesus’ original statement, but omits the later use of this saying as an accusation and the misrepresentation of Jesus’ words. Mark reports the misrepresentation of Jesus’ statement at his trial, but omits the original statement. The two accounts, therefore, interlock in a way that supports the historicity of both.
There is also evidence of the independence between John and the synoptics in recounting this episode, since, in the synoptics, the temple cleansing (which precipitated this discourse) occurs towards the end of Jesus’ ministry, whereas John reports a temple cleansing towards the beginning. I would argue that the synoptics and John are reporting two separate events. Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between John and the synoptics is internal evidence for their independence in recounting this scene — It does not at all look like John is combing through Mark and attempting to fit his account together with Mark’s narrative.
2. Why ask Philip?
In John 6:1-5, we are told,
After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. 2 And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick. 3 Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. 5 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”
Now, Philip is a fairly minor character in the New Testament. And one might, naturally, be inclined to wonder why Jesus hasn’t turned to someone a little higher in the pecking order (such as Peter or John). Perhaps even Judas Iscariot would have been a more suitable choice for this role in the account, since John informs us elsewhere that he was responsible for the money bag (Jn 13:29). Another relatively minor disciple, Andrew (the brother of Simon Peter) also gets involved in the reply in verses 8-9. Why does Andrew get involved here?
A partial clue is provided in John 1:44: “Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.” Likewise, John 12:21 refers to “Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee.” What is so significant about Philip and Andrew being from the town of Bethsaida? We don’t learn this until we read the parallel account in Luke’s gospel (9:10-17). At the opening of the account (verses 10-11) we are told,
“When the apostles returned, they reported to Jesus what they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew by themselves to a town called Bethsaida, but the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.”
And so, we are informed by Luke (who does not mention Philip or Andrew in this context at all) that the event was actually taking place in Bethsaida — the town from which Philip and Andrew were from. Jesus thus turns to Philip, whom, he believed, would be familiar with the area. This also plausibly illuminates the involvement of Andrew (who was also from Bethsaida — Jn 1:44) in the reply. Andrew says to Jesus in John 6:9, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” One may conjecture that Andrew, being from Bethsaida where this miracle took place, knew the boy, or perhaps Jesus had directed his question to Philip and Andrew, both of whom were locals.
The reason for Jesus addressing Philip in John 6:5 is never explicitly spelled out in the text. Instead, one has to do the detective work of piecing together the clues drawn from John 6:5; John 12:21 (and 1:44); and Luke 9:10-17. This is precisely the sort of casual connection between accounts that one might expect to see in historical reportage, though it is more surprising given the hypothesis of fictionalization.
3. The green grass and the coming and going crowds
Curiously, Mark’s narrative describes the people as sitting down in groups on “the green grass” (verse 39). This is significant, not because Mark mentions people sitting on the grass (Matthew 14:19 also records people sitting “down on the grass”, and Luke 9:15 reports that “everyone sat down”, and John 6:10 notes that “There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down.”). It is significant because Mark reports that the grass was “green”. This is particularly intriguing when one considers that, in Israel (particularly in Galilee) the grass is brown.
What makes this even more intriguing is that Mark’s gospel (6:30-42) also states, in verses 30-31 that,
The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.
Mark casually alludes to there being many people coming and going, indicating the hustle and bustle and general business of the area during this time. But why were there many coming and going? Mark does not tell us. In John’s account, however, we are told that “The Jewish Passover Festival was near,” (Jn 6:4). This explains why many people were “coming and going.” Moreover, during the season of the Passover (i.e., in the spring time), there is a relatively small window where the grass is indeed green in that area, due to elevated levels of rainfall. Here is a graph, showing the precipitation in millimeters at the nearby town of Tiberias [16]:
As shown in the chart, there is a significant amount of rainfall in the months of November, December, January, February, and March. There is also a need for sunshine following the rain to allow for the “greening up” of a large space, as indicated by Mark. Spring time is when one might expect to see a large amount of green grass.
When this is coupled with the detail given to us by John that the Passover festival (in the spring) was at hand, this illuminates and makes sense of the casual (but surprising) statements in Mark that the grass was green and that people were coming and going. As Peter J. Williams notes, “Between the years AD 26 and 36, all possible dates for Passover ranged between the last days of March and the end of April. So if this event really took place at the time recorded, we should indeed expect that after the five most significant months of precipitation, grass would have been green.” [17]
The preceding two undesigned coincidences are further supported by the various marks of independence between the accounts concerning the feeding of the five thousand. For example, only John mentions the boy, and that they were barley loaves (Jn 6:9), which fits with the time of year, being near the Passover. Only John mentions that it was Andrew who brought the boy forward (Jn 6:8). Only John mentions the other name of the Sea of Galilee (the Sea of Tiberius), a name that we can confirm from other sources (Jn 6:1). Only John records how far the disciples had rowed when they saw Jesus coming towards him, which is given as an imprecise measurement of twenty-five or thirty stadia, or about three or four miles (Jn 6:19). Matthew and Luke both mention that Jesus healed people (Mt 14:14; Lk 6:11), a detail not supplied by Mark. Only Mark mentions that the disciples landed at Gennesaret (Mk 6:53). This fits with the account in John, which says that they set off for Capernaum (Jn 6:17). One could even view this connection as an undesigned coincidence between Mark and John. Matthew alone mentions that the reason for Jesus leaving with His disciples was that Jesus heard about the death of John the Baptist (Mt 14:13). This is at variance, though compatible, with the statement in Mark 6:31 that it was to get away from the crowds that Jesus instructed the disciples to retreat to a desolate area. The disciples, who witnessed the event, would have been able to draw their own conclusions about what had triggered Jesus’ desire to leave for a desolate place. Finally, only Matthew includes the account of Peter’s request that Jesus ask him to walk toward Him on the water (Mt 14:28-31). This reflects Peter’s impulsive nature, a character trait that is consistent across all four gospels and across diverse episodes (see my article on artless similarities for further discussion of the evidential significance of this).
There are also apparent discrepancies (though with plausible harmonizations) that further point to the independence of the accounts. For example, in Mark’s account, the narrative concerning the feeding of the five thousand begins with the disciples returning from a preaching ministry to tell Jesus “all that they had done and taught” (Mk 6:30). Given the business of the place, Jesus told the disciples to “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” (v. 31). However, “many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them,” (v. 33). That the people were able to run on ahead of Jesus on foot and arrive before him fits well with the size of the Sea of Galilee, which is only seven miles wide at its widest point. The people came and met Jesus as he was getting out of the boat. Mark tells us that “When he went ashore he saw a great crowd” (v. 34).
Compare this with the account in John 6. John does not mention the disciples’ preaching ministry and their coming to report to Jesus what they had done and taught. Nor does John report Jesus’ instruction to “come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” However, John does indicate that Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which John calls by its other name, the Sea of Tiberius (v. 1). According to John, there was a large crowd following Jesus “because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick” (v. 2). Jesus went up on a mountain and lifted up his eyes and saw the crowd coming toward Him (v. 5). If one were to only read John’s account, one would get the impression that Jesus had gone up to the mountainside with His disciples, and it was only then that He saw the crowd that had been following Him. Note that all four gospels mention the mountain in this region (Mt 14:23; Mk 6:46; Lk 9:28; Jn 6:3). Mark, speaking of the crowd that had followed Jesus, says that Jesus “had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things” (Mk 6:34). In Matthew’s account, we read that “he had compassion on them and healed their sick” (Mt 14:14). In Luke, it mentions both that Jesus “spoke to them of the kingdom of God” and that he “cured those who had need of healing” (Lk 9:11). Thus, we are to picture Jesus having been with the crowd for some time prior to the feeding event. In the synoptics, we are told that when it was getting late, they discussed where to find food for the crowd of people. John, however, does not mention the earlier part of the day. It seems, then, that the crowds converged on him while He had slipped away with His disciples. John’s emphasis, though, is on the feeding through the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fish. The fact that these accounts, which appear upon first blush to contradict one another, fit together so casually reveals the independence of the accounts.
Another discrepancy concerns the question of whether Jesus went up into the mountain to escape the crowds and pray following the feeding of the five thousand before or after the disciples left in a boat. John 6:15-16 implies that it was before the disciples left in a boat, whereas Mark 6:45 says that “he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, toward Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd.” The synoptics, however, do not state that Jesus escorted the disciples down to the boat and then went up the mountain. Rather, the gospels simply report that Jesus instructed them to get into the boat and go over to the other side. The instruction could have been given some distance from the shoreline. Indeed, it plausibly could have taken them some time to winnow their way through the crowd and reach the shoreline. Perhaps they could even hear Jesus dismissing the crowds, or Jesus could have informed them of His intentions.
John’s record of events does not in fact conflict with what we read in Mark, if one reads these events as occurring in a somewhat intertwined manner. It is quite conceivable that John’s mind was following the course of Jesus’ actions, and is picturing, as it got dark, the disciples approaching the shore and getting into the boat. That, however, does not entail that Jesus in fact went up the mountain first. Mark (or his source, plausibly Peter), on the other hand, may be thinking of the urgency of Jesus sending them away. If this is the case, then it is not particularly surprising to find the evangelists describing the events in a slightly different order. But this is precisely the sort of variation one might expect to see in independent eyewitness accounts.
4. The triumphal entry
In John 12:1-2,12-13, we are given a unique detail that is specific to the fourth gospel — that is, the specific day on which Jesus arrived in Bethany (six days prior to Passover), and that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem took place the following day (i.e., five days before Passover:
Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table…12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”
A parallel account of the arrival in Bethany can be found in Mark 11:1-11 (although Mark does not give us the time-stamp that John provides):
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it…7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.
Mark does not tell us that Jesus approached Bethany six days before the Passover, nor that it was the following day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. However, it appears implicit that they fetched the colt early in the morning — since the disciples fetch the colt, there is the triumphal entry and Jesus and the disciples entered the temple and “looked around at everything” (which was presumably a whole day’s activities). If, then, we assume that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover, then we can begin counting off the days narrated in Mark’s gospel, to see if the narrative synchronizes with that of John.
Verses 12-14 narrate the cursing of the fig tree, which according to verse 12 happened “the following day” (i.e. four days before the Passover, assuming John’s chronology to be correct). Jesus then cleansed the temple and according to verse 19 “when evening came they went out of the city.” In verse 20, we read, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” We are now therefore at three days before the Passover. In Mark 13, we read of the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. This we can assume took place in the evening, since the Mount of Olives was mid-way between the temple in Jerusalem and Bethany where Jesus and the disciples were staying. This, then, marks the end of three days before the Passover. When we turn over to Mark 14, we read in verse 1, “It was now two days before the Passover.” Mark and John thus calibrate perfectly, thereby corroborating the specific time-stamp given to us by John.
This coincidence is made all the stronger by the consideration that Mark and John appear to be relating these events independently — that is to say, John is not using Mark’s gospel as a source for this narrative. For one thing, Mark telescopes the narrative in Mark 11, and does not reveal that Jesus’ entrance into Bethany occurred the evening before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. If you were to read only Mark you might come away with the impression that Jesus entered Bethany and Jerusalem on the same day, but this is contradicted by John, which gives further information (Jesus spent the night in Bethany before entering Jerusalem). Furthermore, Mark 13 does not explicitly state that the Olivet discourse took place in the evening, but this is something that may be inferred from the fact that Jesus’ accommodation for the evening was in Bethany (a detail supplied by John but not Mark) and the fact that the mount of olives is midway between Jerusalem (where Jesus had been all day) and Bethany where His accommodation for the evening was.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence of independence is an apparent discrepancy that exists between John 12:1 and Mark 14:3 in that John places the anointing at Bethany six days before Passover, whereas Mark appears to place it two days before Passover. John implies that it took place shortly after Jesus’ arrival in Bethany (before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem), while Mark implies that it took place after the triumphal entry. Craig Blomberg proposes that Mark is deliberately narrating events a-chronologically for thematic reasons since Jesus says that the anointing is for his burial (Mk 14:8; Jn 12:7). He notes that “Mark 14:3…is linked with verse 2 merely by a kai (and) and goes on to describe an incident that takes place at some unspecified time while Jesus ‘was in Bethany’. Once we observe that both Mark and John have Jesus interpreting the anointing as preparation for his burial, one can understand why Mark would insert the story immediately preceding a description of other foreshadowings of his death, including his last meal with the Twelve.” [18] Another idea, which also involves appealing to a-chronological narration, has been proposed by the late Steve Hays, namely, that Mark may have composed 14:1-2 and subsequently broken off his writing before returning to write concerning the anointing at Bethany as another episode that occurred during the Passion week (though not intending to connect it to verses 1-2 which state that the Passover was two days away). [19] However, on the hypothesis of a-chronological narration, one might have expected Mark to supply more information concerning what happened on Wednesday, prior to the discussion of the anointing at Bethany. Instead, there is almost no narrative in Mark between that careful chronological marker and the anointing at Bethany. All Mark tells us concerning that day is that “the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, for they said, ‘Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people,’” (Mk 14:1-2), but Mark has already indicated in 12:12 that “they were seeking to arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away.” Lydia McGrew comments [20],
Since Mark introduces the day in 14.1, he presumably intends to narrate some substantial events that happened on that day. Why would he make such an explicit time reference in 14.1, narrate only the decision of the Jewish leaders on that day, break off abruptly to tell about something that happened several days earlier, and then return in verse 10 to the narrative of events on Wednesday? This would be an extremely choppy composition process indeed, almost as if he did not even read what he had last written when he began narrating the dinner at Bethany. And even if that were the case, why would he not have some better time indicator when returning to Wednesday in verse 10? Mark has been indicating the days in his narrative of Passion Week from Sunday to Wednesday fairly clearly (Mark 11.11-12, 19-20, 13.1-3, 14.1). It would be surprising if he suddenly began narrating achronologically in 14.3, even as an artifact of breaking off and resuming writing. It is far simpler to take it that Mark intends all of the events at the beginning of Chapter 14 to occur on Wednesday.
This minor discrepancy between John and Mark is less surprising if John is not using Mark as a source for his account of these events.
5. Jesus washes the disciples’ feet
In the account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John, on the other hand, reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that they are rooted in historical memory.
As in the preceding examples, this example is rendered all the stronger by the fact that the narratives of the last supper appear to be independent of one another. For example, the synoptic accounts include the words of institution of the Lord’s supper (“This is my body…this is my blood”) at the meal (Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20), whereas John entirely omits the eucharistic words and instead features the foot washing, which is not found in the synoptics. While the account in the synoptics emphasizes the new covenant and Jesus’ impending death, the account in John focuses on servanthood, love and unity, with an extended teaching section that is absent from the synoptics.
6. Healing a blind man
In Mark 10:46-48, we read the following account about the healing of Bartimaeus:
46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. 47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
This raises the question as to how Bartimaeus know about Jesus. While all three other gospels mention Jesus healing the blind prior to this time (Mt 9:27-31; Mk 8:22-25; Lk 7:21), these healings took place up in the Galilee region, several days’ walk north of Jericho. In John 9, however, Jesus healed a man who had been blind since birth, in Jerusalem, which is much closer to Jericho. There is, moreover, an additional reason to believe that this miracle was fresh in the minds of the people in the region. In chapter 11, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. According to John 11:37, some of the Jews said, “Could not be who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?” Clearly, the healing of the blind man was being widely spoken of.
7. Jesus before Pilate
In John 18:33, Pilate asks Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” This seems abrupt in John — where did Pilate get the idea of Jesus claiming to be a king from? When we turn to the gospel of Luke, we read that the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be a king, which would be a political threat to Roman authority (Lk 23:2). John does not report that this allegation was made. One might object here that this coincidence may be explained by incomplete copying, where John, having access to Luke, might have simply neglected to write down the accusation of sedition found in Luke while copying the information that Pilate asked if he is the king of the Jews. However, these narratives appear to be independent. In John, Pilate asks the accusers what charge they bring against Jesus (Jn 18:29) and they answer him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” This somewhat disrespectful answer is not found in Luke’s gospel. Rather, in Luke, they give a charge against Jesus — one that Pilate was bound to take notice of: “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king,” (Lk 23:2). If John were copying Luke, why does he include this disrespectful reply from the crowd to Pilate’s request for a charge, which is not found in Luke? One might expect Pilate’s question about the charge to prompt his memory to include the charge given by Luke, if Luke is indeed his source here.
Moreover, in Luke’s gospel, upon Jesus’ affirmation in response to Pilate’s question, “Are you the king of the Jews?”, Jesus answers in the affirmative, “You have said so,” (Lk 23:3). Pilate promptly declares, “I find no guilt in this man.” This is a very peculiar response. Jesus has just pled guilty to the charge of claiming to be king of the Jews, and Pilate finds him to be innocent. The explanation for this is found in the parallel account in John’s gospel (18:33-38):
33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.
Thus, Jesus indicates that his kingdom is not an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one. Pilate thus apparently concludes that Jesus is a harmless religious crank, and therefore tells the Jewish authorities that he finds no guilt in this man. We have strong reason to think that Luke did not have access to the account of the dialogue found in John, since there is ample justification for placing the date of the gospel of John after the synoptic gospels. One may also observe that the incompleteness and oddity of Luke’s narrative, taken on its own, is rather noticeable. It would not be easy for someone to conjecture what Jesus must have said in order to explain Pilate’s declaration that he finds no guilt in Jesus. If Luke had access to John’s version of events and was copying it, one might expect him to take the trouble to copy more of it rather than leave a lacuna. This is particularly the case since Luke was aware about the charge of sedition and reports it. It is even alleged that Jesus is travelling around inciting people to rebellion. In this context, Pilate’s repeated insistence that he finds no guilt in Jesus is quite peculiar, given the brevity of the account of Pilate’s questioning Jesus, and Jesus’ reply of “you have said it.” If Luke had access to the fuller account and was dependent upon it, one might expect him to include Jesus’ statement that his kingdom is not of this world.
8. The prayer at Gethsemane
John uniquely reports that, in response to Peter striking off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant, Jesus responded, after instructing Peter to put his sword back in its sheath, “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (Jn 18:11). This is the only place in John’s gospel where Jesus uses the metaphor of the cup to describe his suffering. Why, then, does Jesus use this metaphor here? In the synoptic gospels, we learn a detail not supplied by John — that Jesus had been praying that night in those very terms, asking the Father that, if it be possible, the cup might be removed from him (Mk 14:36; Mt 26:39; Lk 22:42). Apparently Jesus understood the approach of the Jewish leaders and Judas Iscariot to be an indication of the Father’s decision to give him the cup. John, however, does not mention that Jesus had been praying in those very terms that evening, and the synoptics do not mention Jesus’ statement to Peter, “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” This supports the historicity of the accounts.
Moreover, the accounts of Gethsemane, in John and the synoptics, appear to be independent of one another. For example, John is the only gospel to mention the name of the high priest’s servant, i.e., Malchus (Jn 18:10), and that one of the individuals who confronted Peter in the high priest’s courtyard was “one of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off” — details that I shall return to later. Moreover, John (unlike Mark and Matthew) does not mention the name of the garden as Gethsemane (cf. Mk 14:32; Mt 26:36). John contains no record of Jesus praying in anguish, nor his threefold prayer and the sleeping disciples and Jesus’ rebuke (cf. Mk 14:38; Mt 26:41), nor Jesus’ sweating drops of blood (cf. Lk 22:44).
9. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man
In John 6:53-56, Jesus gives a difficult teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
This saying, especially in a Jewish context, is difficult to envision being an invention on the part of the evangelists. In fact, it is such a difficult saying that it leads to many of his disciples turning away from him (Jn 6:66). Whereas John does not record the institution of the Lord’s Supper, where Jesus identifies the bread as his body and the wine as his blood, this is recorded by the synoptics (which do not recount the Bread of Life discourse from John 6). Thus, John provides the background that explains why Jesus’ words at the Last Supper would have been intelligible and meaningful to his disciples — they had already heard him speak metaphorically about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Meanwhile, the synoptics give the actual institution of the rite, but not the earlier discourse. Lydia McGrew argues that [21],
[Jesus] was alluding cryptically to something that he would make clearer later to those who continued to follow him. This sort of veiled allusion would hardly be uncharacteristic of Jesus’ teaching as we find it elsewhere. For example, his words to Nicodemus about the Holy Spirit in John 3 would not have been clear to Nicodemus at the time but would have become much clearer in the light of Pentecost. The statement, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up” recorded in John 2.19 is glossed by John, in hindsight, as referring to the resurrection, but Jesus himself apparently did not explain it at the time.
This consistency with Jesus’ sometimes cryptic method of teaching, together with the later explanation at the institution of the Lord’s supper (present in the synoptics, omitted from John) is best accounted for on the hypothesis of historical reportage.
10. The courage of Joseph of Arimathea
In Mark 15:43, we read, “Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus,” (emphasis added). The allusion to Joseph’s courage is quite emphatic in Mark. Why does Mark emphasize the courageousness of Joseph of Arimathea? This fits together well with the account of Jesus’ burial in John 19:38: “After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body,” (emphasis added). Lydia McGrew comments: “John does not emphasize Joseph’s courage, but what he does say explains why someone else writing about him might be moved to note it. According to John, Joseph had previously been a secret disciple for fear of the Jews; John implies that this was the first time that he had openly shown himself to be sympathetic to Jesus. As if to emphasize the point still further, John states that Joseph was joined in the work of burial by Nicodemus, who had previously come to Jesus by night (John 3), presumably out of a similar fear.” [22] McGrew further notes that “John’s report tells of Joseph’s previous lack of boldness (not mentioned in any of the Synoptic Gospels), which the twelve disciples may well have known about and had different opinions about. John respects Joseph and Nicodemus only insofar as they finally step forward and make their discipleship known, which John may consider to be the least they could do. Mark, on the other hand, is more sympathetic and inclined to praise Joseph for ‘taking courage.'” [23]
It is sometimes alleged that Jesus would not have been given a proper burial since it was the normative practice of the Romans to throw the bodies of crucifixion victims into a common grave. However, there appear to have been exceptions. For example, the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, wrote, “I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them the ordinary rites. For it was meet that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treatment upon the birthday of an emperor and also that the sanctity of the festival should be maintained,” (Flaccus 83) [24]. John informs us that the motivation for taking the bodies down from the cross and burying them was that the next day was the Sabbath, which happened to be a “high day” (Jn 19:31) — i.e., not any ordinary Sabbath day, but a particularly special feast day, falling within the feast of unleavened bread (also known as the Passover). It is not, therefore, antecedently implausible that Jesus would have been given a proper burial. Josephus, moreover, describes the brutal actions of the Idumeans during a raid upon Jerusalem in 68 C.E. (the Idumeans were called for by the Zealots, who falsely claimed that Jerusalem’s leadership planned to betray the city to the Romans — after Ananas ben Ananus, the son of Biblical Ananus, had mobilized citizens against the Zealots). Josephus reports (Wars 4.5.2) [25]:
(314) But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew everyone they met; (315) and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; (316) and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. (317) Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.
Thus, apparently the Jews considered it sacrilegious of the Idumeans to cast away the dead bodies of the deceased without burial, despite the fact that even for crucified victims the Jews would give them a proper burial. This further undermines the thesis that crucifixion victims were never afforded a proper burial. And, indeed, the Romans often made exceptions for the Jews and were respectful of their religious traditions (e.g. see the decrees of Julius Caesar in Antiquities 14.10.6, and of Augustus in Antiquities 16.6.2). This is why the Jews were exempted from worshipping the emperor, and were not obliged to appear before any judge on the Sabbath day, or on the day of preparation for the Sabbath.
Unexplained Allusions
What follows are eight examples of unexplained allusions in the gospel of John.
1. Going down to Capernaum
In John 2:12, we read, that following the wedding at Cana, Jesus “went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.” Nothing in John provides an explanation of why Jesus went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and disciples. Indeed, the next scene in John is the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem. It is more probable that John would have recorded this excursion, with no relation to his narrative, if he had reason to believe it to be true. However, it is quite surprising that he would have included it if he were fictionalizing events.
2. A dispute concerning purification
In John 3:25-26, we read, “Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. And they came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.’” John leaves unexplained what precisely the dispute over purification was about. The reader may have the initial impression that the Jews were approaching John the Baptist to ask him to weigh in on their dispute concerning purification. Instead, they tell John the Baptist about Jesus’ successful baptismal ministry. This, again, evinces the historical credibility of John’s account. Lydia McGrew summarizes [26]:
How is the complaint related to the dispute that occasioned it? One can guess that perhaps Jesus’ disciples carried out baptism in a different form or under a different set of ritual requirements than did John the Baptist. Perhaps the disciples of John the Baptist had been debating the relative merits of these practices with an unnamed follower of Jesus. But this is entirely conjectural and gives us no idea what the differences might have been. It is obviously not important to the evangelist to clarify. He is going somewhere else. He reports the dispute with the Jew about purification in passing, exactly as an artless memoirist would do, as the lead-in to the complaint and to John the Baptist’s famous declaration of his own subordination to Jesus, culminating in verse 30 with, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” The evangelist felt no need to explain the dispute with the Jew; moreover, for the purposes of the narrative and John the Baptist’s declaration, there was no need even to mention the dispute. Bringing it in would certainly make for poor fictionalizing narrative. John could more easily have started out with John the Baptist’s disciples’ complaint that Jesus’ disciples are baptizing so many. The mention of the dispute with the Jew is just by the way. What could be more like truth?
An additional point here that is of note is that, in John 4:1-2, we read, “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),” Observe that John is careful to clarify that it was not, in fact, Jesus himself who conducted the baptisms, but rather these were carried out on his behalf by his disciples. This is another mark of John’s scrupulousness as an historian.
3. The friend of the bridegroom
In John 3:29, John the Baptist says, as part of his reply to those who pointed out that Jesus is baptizing more than John, “The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.” To what does this refer? Leon Morris calls it an obscure Judean wedding custom. [27] John never explains this custom to his readers, a large contingent of which are gentiles and would presumably know nothing of this custom. Lydia McGrew notes that “John the Baptist gives the impression of saying something that his audience, in the narrative, would have understood. Again, this his the mark of reportage,” (emphasis original). [28]
4. You have seen me and yet do not believe
In John 6:36, Jesus says, “But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.” Nowhere in John is the saying, to which Jesus is referring, recorded. If the saying recorded in John 6:36 is fictitious, why did John not simply attribute this saying to Jesus without making an allusion to an earlier episode that he did not include?
5. Where is the Messiah from?
The crowds in Jerusalem at the feast of booths appear to have had different ideas regarding Jesus’ place of birth. Some maintained that Jesus could not be the Messiah due to his being from Galilee rather than Bethlehem (Jn 7:41). Elsewhere in this chapter, however, individuals in the same city have a different concern — that is, they do not know where he is from: “We know where this man comes from, and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from,” (Jn 7:27). These two objections are in prima facie tension with one another, but John says nothing to resolve this tension. Presumably, they came from different members of the crowd, though John does not state this. Moreover, the latter objection, alluding to an apparent tradition that nobody will know where the Messiah comes from, is rather peculiar (particularly since there would be great interest in the place of origins of a Messianic claimant), and it is a mark of historicity that John reports it without any further explanation.
6. A phantom Scripture
In John 7:37, at the feast of booths, Jesus stands up and cries out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” We discussed this saying previously in the context of discussing the water drawing and lights ceremonies that were associated with the feast of booths. Here, I want to highlight an additional feature of this saying. What Scripture is Jesus alluding to in this verse? There is, in fact, no verse in the Hebrew Bible that says, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” Jesus is likely summarizing a set of texts (e.g. Exod 17:6; Num 20:8–11; Isa 55:1, 58:11; Jer 2:13; Ezek 47:1–12; Joel 3:18; Zech 14:8). Leon Morris comments on the evidential significance of this phantom Scripture for the authenticity of the saying [29]:
“One [problem] is the notorious difficulty of knowing what passage of the Old Testament Jesus had in mind. But the very fact that the difficulty can arise is, of course, evidence for the genuineness of the passage…It is intelligible that Jesus cited Scripture in an unusual fashion. It is not intelligible that someone who was manufacturing the incident would affirm that Jesus ascribed certain words to Scripture, but do it so badly that no one has been able to find the passage.”
7. Jesus in Ephraim
In John 11:54, following the plot to put Jesus to death, we read that “Jesus, therefore no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and there he stayed with the disciples.” This one may not technically qualify as an unexplained allusion, since there is an explanation provided as to why Jesus went to Ephraim (i.e., the plot to put him to death). Nonetheless, the reference to Ephraim near the wilderness is quite specific. And there is no further elaboration on what precisely Jesus did while in Ephraim. Indeed, the narrative simply moves on with Jesus arriving in Bethany six days before Passover and having dinner with Mary and Martha, and their brother Lazarus, whom Jesus raised in the preceding chapter (Jn 12:1-8).
8. Greeks at Passover
In John 12:20-22, we read,
20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
One wonders what the Greeks wanted to speak to Jesus about. However, John does not tell us. Instead, he reports only Jesus response:
The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
If John invented this scene, it is quite surprising that he mentioned the Greeks who wished to speak to Jesus and their referral to Jesus by Philip and Andrew, but did not include the question they had for Jesus. Again, this is a mark of reportage.
9. Thomas called the Twin
In John 11:16, 20:24 and 21:2, the author mentions very casually that Thomas is “called the Twin,” (Δίδυμος in Greek). However, he provides no further explanation as to why Thomas was given this name. Most likely, Thomas had a twin brother — though the twin’s identity is not specified in the New Testament. If Thomas were invented, why give him the name “the Twin” without any further elaboration or identification of Thomas’ twin?
Expressive Silence
A sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out — this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence — repeated omissions that have a meaning. Another example in the New Testament is the silence of the gospels concerning the presence of Joseph, Jesus’ father. He only appears in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. The last we see of Joseph is during the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus is twelve years old (Lk 2:41-50). John is evidently aware that Jesus had a father called Joseph, since he is alluded to in John 1;45 and 6:42 — but he does not appear in any narrative in John. Moreover, Joseph is conspicuously present from the narratives, even when Jesus’ family are conspicuously present. In the synoptics, this can be seen in Mark 3:20-21,31-35 and 6:1-3 (see also Acts 1:14). In John’s gospel, we see this, for example, in John 2:12: “After this he [Jesus] went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.” There is no mention of Joseph in this text, even though there is explicit reference to Jesus’ mother and brothers. In John 19:27, Jesus, addressing the disciple whom he loved, from the cross, says: “Behold your mother!” John adds, “And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” If Joseph were still around, this is quite surprising. Nowhere are we told what became of Joseph. There is a silent presumption of his death without any positive affirmation of that fact. This suggests that the evangelists knew more about the situation than what they disclose in the gospels. This, again, is a mark of reportage.
Artless Similarities
Artless similarities refer to the casual consistency with which a character is portrayed across different episodes involving the character, and across the four gospels. Indeed, the evidence from unity of personality in the gospels is a category of argument that was advanced by apologists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such as William Paley [30], Stanley Leathes [31] and J.S. Howson [32], but is regrettably seldom used today. Paley summarizes the argument thus [33]:
It is known to every reader of Scripture, that the passages of Christ’s history, preserved by Saint John, are, except his passion and resurrection, for the most part, different from those which are delivered by the other evangelists. And I think the ancient account of this difference to be the true one, viz. that Saint John wrote after the rest, and to supply what he thought omissions in their narratives, of which the principal were our Saviour’s conferences with the Jews of Jerusalem, and his discourses to his apostles at his last supper. But what I observe in the comparison of these several accounts is, that, although actions and discourses are ascribed to Christ by Saint John, in general different from what are given to him by the other evangelists, yet under this diversity, there is a similitude of manner, which indicates that the actions and discourses proceeded from the same person. I should have laid little stress upon the repetition of actions substantially alike, or of discourses containing many of the same expressions, because that is a species of resemblance which would either belong to a true history, or might easily be imitated in a false one. Nor do I deny that a dramatic writer is able to sustain propriety and distinction of character, through a great variety of separate incidents and situations. But the evangelists were not dramatic writers; nor possessed the talents of dramatic writers; nor will it, I believe, be suspected, that they studied uniformity of character, or ever thought of any such thing, in the person who was the subject of their histories. Such uniformity, if it exist, is on their part casual; and if there be, as I contend there is, a perceptible resemblance of manner, in passages, and between discourses, which are in themselves extremely distinct, and are delivered by historians writing without any imitation of, or reference to, one another, it affords a just presumption, that these are, what they profess to be, the actions and the discourses of the same real person; that the evangelists wrote from fact and not from imagination.
The similarities in Jesus’ mannerisms, turns of phrase and modes of teaching, across diverse episodes and between different sources, reflects the turn of mind of the same historical person that lies behind the gospel accounts. In what follows, I offer a sample of examples of this class of evidence.
Drawing teaching from the occasion
An example of this class of evidence is Jesus’ tendency, which is exemplified across all four gospels, to draw doctrine or to raise discourses from the occasion, environment, or surroundings. What follows is a list of examples taken from the synoptics:
- Matthew 4:18-19 (cf. Mk 1:16-17, Lk 5:10): 16 Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”
- Matthew 12:46-50 (cf. Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21): 46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
- Matthew 15:1-2,10-11 (cf. Mk 7:5, 14-16): Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” … 10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”
- Matthew 16:5-7 (cf. Mk 8:14-15): 5 When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.”
- Matthew 18:1-6 (cf. Mk 10:13-15, Lk 18:15-17): At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
- Luke 13:1-3: There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Now let us turn to distinctive episodes reported by the gospel of John, where Jesus exemplifies a similar manner of teaching:
- John 4:12-14: 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” 13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
- John 4:31-34: 31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.
- John 6:25-27: 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
- John 9:1-5, 35-41: As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” … 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” 38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.
Paley remarks [34],
All that the reader has now to do, is to compare the series of examples taken from Saint John, with the series of examples taken from the other evangelists, and to judge whether there be not a visible agreement of manner between them. In the above-quoted passages, the occasion is stated, as well as the reflection. They seem, therefore, the most proper for the purpose of our argument. A large, however, and curious collection has been made by different writers, of instances, in which it is extremely probable that Christ spoke in allusion to some object, or some occasion, then before him, though the mention of the occasion, or of the object, be omitted in the history. I only observe, that these instances are common to Saint John’s Gospel with the other three.
In other words, the resemblance in the mode of teaching, across diverse episodes and across different sources represent the turns of mind of the same historical figure who lies behind these narratives. As for the cases where it is highly probable that Jesus raised a discourse from the occasion or surroundings but this is not made explicit by the text, we have already discussed, earlier in this essay, how the Babylonian Talmud, in describing the practices associated with the feast of booths, sheds light on the background to Jesus’ statements in John 7:37-38 and 8:12 — even though John himself does not explain this background.
Another example of this kind is John 4:35-38, where Jesus says to the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well,
35 Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest. 36 Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. 37 For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”
There is, in fact, grain growing on the lower slopes of Mount Gerizim, which is visible from Jacob’s well where this discourse took place.
In John 14:31b, during the farewell discourse, Jesus very abruptly says “Rise, let us go from here.” This suggests that Jesus and the disciples are leaving the upper room and are headed towards the garden of Gethsemane. Nonetheless, the discourse continues. In John 15:1-2, Jesus says, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.” It is quite probable that Jesus and the disciples would have past by vineyards while on route to the garden of Gethsemane. Josephus also describes a golden vine, with branches as tall as a man’s height, over the temple gate, which Jesus and the disciples may be presumed to have passed when leaving Jerusalem on route to Gethsemane (Antiquities 15.11.3; Wars 5.5.4). Brooke F. Westcott comments [35],
Once again, as I believe, we have a significant allusion to the decoration of the Temple. On the eve of the Passion, at the close of the discourses in the upper chamber, the Lord said, “Arise, let us go hence” (14:31). Some time after we read that when He had finished his High-priestly prayer, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Kidron. It seems to be impossible to regard this notice as the fulfilment of the former command. The house, therefore, must have been left before, as is clearly implied in the narrative, and the walk to the Mount of Olives might well include a visit to the Temple; and over the gate of the Temple was spread the great vine of gold, which was reckoned among its noblest ornaments. Is it then a mere fancy to suppose that the image of the vine and its branches was suggested by the sight of this symbolic tracery, lighted by the Paschal moon, and that the High priestly prayer was offered under the shadow of the Temple walls?
Witty Word Parallels
In John 7:21-23, Jesus, having been challenged about healing a paralyzed man on the Sabbath day, responds to his critics, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?” Jesus point here is that, in Jewish law, the command to circumcise a boy on his eighth day took priority over the command to observe the Sabbath. If, then, it is permissible for the Jews to cut off part of a man on the Sabbath day, all the more should it be permissible for Jesus to make a man whole on the Sabbath day.
In Luke 13:14, Jesus is challenged about healing a woman on the Sabbath day — who had been bent over for eighteen years and unable to stand up. In verses 15-16, Jesus responds, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” Here, Jesus compares loosing the animal to loosing the woman. The similarity in style reflects the turn of mind of the historical Jesus.
In Matthew 23:23-24, Jesus condemns the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” In this text, Jesus highlights the misplaced priorities of the scribes and Pharisees. They are more concerned about nit-picky matters of their interpretation of the law of Moses — leading them to measure out light-weight herbs with which to tithe — than they are about the heavier matters of the law — i.e., justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Jesus was not being hyperbolic — indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud indicates that this practice of tithing light-weight herbs is historical (y. Maas. 4:3). Notice, though, how again Jesus makes his point using a witty word parallel — tithing light-weight herbs vs. neglecting the heavier matters of the law. Again, we see the same Jesus across these different sayings reported in three different gospels.
Jesus’ sarcasm
Another feature of Jesus’ personality, which is held consistent throughout the gospels, is Jesus’ savage wit, or sarcastic tone. For example, in John 10:31, after Jesus has declared, “I and the Father are one,” the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus to death. Jesus retorts, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” Compare this with Jesus’ sarcastic tone in the synoptics. For example, in Luke 13:31-33, we read, “At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, ‘Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.’ And he said to them, ‘Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem,'” (emphasis added). Perhaps the closest parallel to this saying in John is in John 5:39-43: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him,” (emphasis added). Jesus’ point here is that his audience would rather have a Messianic figure who was more self-promoting than Jesus. The tone is quite similar to what we see in Luke 13:33: “It cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.” Jesus also says, on multiple occasions, to the scribes and Pharisees (who pride themselves on their knowledge of the Scriptures), “Have you never read?” (e.g. Mt 12:3, 21:42, 22:31). This is best explained if these various sayings represent the personality of the same historical person.
Turning away compliments
In John 3, we read of Nicodemus’ approach to Jesus by night. In verse 2, Nicodemus attempts to butter up Jesus with a compliment: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answers him in verse 3, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The reader is left to wonder, “Where did that come from?” Compare this with Matthew 8:19-20 (cf. Lk 9:58): “And a scribe came up and said to him, ‘Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.’” Again, Jesus deflects a compliment with a remark that appears to come from nowhere. In Luke 11:27-28, we read, “As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'” Again, we see Jesus deflecting a compliment.
Evidence of unity from shared language
Consider the following instances of shared language between the Jesus represented in John’s gospel and the Jesus represented in the synoptics. Note that the parallels provided in this section occur in different scenes and settings.
Set 1:
- Matt 10:23-25: When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
- John 15:20: Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.
Set 2:
- Matt. 10:40: Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.
- Mark 9:37: Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.
- John 13:20: Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.
Set 3:
- Matt. 7:7: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
- John 16:24: Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
Set 4:
- Luke 16:29-31: But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’
- John 5:45-47: Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
Set 5:
- Matthew 11:27: All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
- John 14:6: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Set 6:
- Matthew 11:28-30: Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
- John 7:37: On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.”
Set 7:
- Mark 5:36: Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe”
- Mark 9:29: All things are possible to him who believes.
- John 11:40: Jesus said to her [Martha], “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
Set 8:
- Matthew 10:39: Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
- John 12:25: Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life
Set 9:
- Matthew 18:14: It is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
- John 6:39: And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
If the sayings of Jesus were invented by the evangelists, it is quite remarkable that they have held consistent, often in quite subtle ways, multiple aspects of Jesus’ personality across diverse episodes — especially between the synoptics and John, which are stylistically different and cover different portions of Jesus’ ministry.
Onomastics
A few points concerning onomastics (i.e. to do with the study of names) also bear positively on the historicity of John’s gospel.
Unnecessary clumping
Unnecessary clumping refers to instances where individuals share the same first name where there is a plausible danger of confusing them (for example, Polycrates of Ephesus confused Philip the disciple with Philip the deacon — see Eus., Hist. eccl. 3.31.3). The most striking example of this occurs in John 19:25: “but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother [i.e., Mary] and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” There are thus, according to John, three different women, all by the name of Mary, who stood by the cross of Jesus. Mary was the most popular female Jewish name in Palestine at this time, and so it is not particularly implausible historically that these women all bore the name of Mary. However, in a fictitious narrative, an inventor would be more likely to assign these women different names.
Judas not Iscariot
In John 14:22, an obscure member of the twelve, speaks to Jesus during the upper room discourse (this is, in fact, this disciple’s sole speaking part in the gospels): Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “’Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?’” In a fictitious narrative, this identification seems quite surprising. Lydia McGrew comments,
[T]here was no reason for [John] to attribute this saying to so obscure a disciple, much less a disciple who unfortunately shared a name with the traitor and hence required a disambiguator to pick him out. It would have been easier to attribute the saying to a different disciple. There seems no reason other than reportage for John to make this note.
This Judas is also named as one of the twelve in Luke 6:16 (he is identified as Judas the son of James). Mark and Matthew omit this Judas from their list of the twelve and instead mention Thaddaeus (Mk 3:18; Mt 10:3). This is part of a broader case that the lists of the twelve are independent. It is surprising, if the list of the twelve is fictious, that Luke would have intentionally replaced this Thaddaeus with someone who had the misfortune of sharing a name with the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Judas is also a much more popular name than Thaddaeus, and so Luke has to also add a disambiguator, referring to him as “Judas the son of James.” The singular reference in John’s gospel to “Judas (not Iscariot)” independently confirms the historicity of this individual.
Underrepresented names with disambiguators
The gospels in general reflect a pattern, with rare exception (such as in the case of Thomas called the Twin, discussed earlier), where high frequency names are assigned a disambiguator, or qualifier (e.g. Simon Peter, John the son of Zebedee, Judas Iscariot, Joseph of Arimathea), whereas lesser frequency names (e.g. Philip, Bartholomew, Cleopas, Nicodemus) are not assigned a disambiguator. This is particularly striking given that the frequencies of Jewish names in Palestine were quite different from those in other regions, such as Egypt. The consistency with which the gospels use disambiguators for popular names and omit them for less popular names is indicative of historical reportage. Disambiguations are the strongest evidence when they are either part of an unnecessary clump (if they were invented) or are individually narratively pointless and unneeded.
As other scholars have argued, there is even a correlation between the frequency of names inside and outside of the New Testament. [36, 37, 38] — a feature not found in the later apocryphal gospels nor in ancient novels, but found in other ancient historical biographies (e.g. Josephus’ Vita, or Plutarch’s Life of Caesar, or Suetonius’s Divus Julius. Given the relatively low sample size of named persons in the gospels, it is to be expected that there would be anomalies — i.e., deviations from the standard pattern. And, yet, even in those cases, they are assigned a disambiguator. For example, there is only one individual by the name of Lazarus who is represented as an historical figure in the gospels, despite Lazarus being the third most popular Jewish male name in Palestine at this time — identified by John as Lazarus of Bethany (Jn 11:1). This reveals that the onomastic congruence that exists in the gospels is not intentional on the part of the evangelists — otherwise one would expect all names with disambiguators to be more highly represented.
Authorial Asides
John, on multiple occasions, carefully distinguishes between his own interpretation of what Jesus said and the actual words of Jesus. This evinces his historical scrupulousness. For example, in John 2:21-22, after Jesus has said “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days,” John provides his interpretation of what Jesus had said: “But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” Similarly, in John 7:39, John interprets Jesus’ statement about the thirsty coming to him and drinking as follows: “Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” John 13:10-11 provides yet another example of the same kind: “Jesus said to him, ‘The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.’ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, ‘Not all of you are clean.’” These authorial asides significantly undermine the popular view that John felt himself at liberty to invent sayings of Jesus that made more explicit what is only implicit in the other gospels. An example of this kind in the synoptics can be found in Mark 7:18-19: “And he said to them, ‘Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)”
On What Day Did Jesus Die?
I decided to include a discussion of this alleged discrepancy between the synoptics and John because it is perhaps the most common, and also since it further supports the independence of the passion narratives, confirming the timing of Jesus’ death as being the first day of unleavened bread (i.e., Nisan 15th). It is often asserted that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover (also known as the feast of unleavened bread). The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.
On this view, John 19:14 is read as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.
According to John 18:28, the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to critics, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. It is often missed, however, that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,
18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.
Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:
- “As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.2.1 [39]
- “As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2 [40]
- “And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.1.3 [41]
Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.
In John 13:1-2, we read:
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…
This text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [42]
Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [43]:
Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.
Though appeal is sometimes made to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument does not work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [44],
One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).
Another aspect of John 13:29 — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [45] See the previous discussion of this (earlier in this essay) for the relevant primary sources.
The Identity of the Author
Having established that the author of the fourth gospel was an individual who was very well informed, close up to the facts, and habitually scrupulous, we now turn our attention to the question of the identity of the author.
Internal Evidence
I will now present a series of concentric arguments, beginning further out and progressively restricting our pool of candidates until John is the only one remaining.
The author was Jewish
Clearly, the author was intimately acquainted with Jewish customs and perspectives — for example, the purification rites (Jn 2:6), the Passover (Jn 2:13), and the Feast of Booths (Jn 7). Brooke F. Westcott notes [46],
A candid examination of the evidence appears to leave no room for reasonable doubt on this point. The whole narrative shews that the author was a Jew. He is familiar with Jewish opinions and customs, his composition is impressed with Jewish characteristics, he is penetrated with the spirit of the Jewish dispensation. His special knowledge, his literary style, his religious faith, all point to the same conclusion. The few arguments which are urged on the other side derive whatever force they have from the isolation of particular phrases which are considered without regard to the general aspect of the life to which they belong.
This detailed familiarity indicates that the author was immersed in the religious and social life of the Jewish people. Moreover, the theology of the fourth gospel is steeped in Jewish concepts, particularly in how it treats the Messiah, the law, and the nature of God. The use of titles such as “the Lamb of God” and “the Son of Man,” which presume a familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, suggest a Jewish background. The author “mentions casually the popular estimate of women (4:27), the importance attached to the religious schools (7:15), the disparagement of ‘the Dispersion’ (7:35), the belief in the transmitted punishment of sin (9:2), the hostility of Jews and Samaritans (4:9), the supercilious contempt of the Pharisees for ‘the people of the earth’ (7:49).” [47] Westcott further observes [48]:
The details of Jewish observances are touched upon with equal precision. Now it is the law of the sabbath which is shewn to be overruled by the requirement of circumcision (7:22 f.): now the ceremonial pollution which is contracted by entering a Gentile court (18:28). The account of the visit to the Feast of Tabernacles only becomes fully intelligible when we supply the facts at which the writer barely hints, being himself filled with the knowledge of them. The pouring of water from Siloam upon the altar of burnt sacrifice, and the kindling of the lamps in the court of the women, explain the imagery of the “living water” (7:38), and of “the light of the world” (8:12). And here, again, a Jew only who knew the festival would be likely to describe “the last day of the feast,” which was added to the original seven, as “the great day” (7:37). The same familiar and decisive knowledge of the people is shewn in glimpses which are opened on domestic life at the marriage feast (2:1–10), and at the burial of Lazarus (11:17–44). The tumultuary stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57 ff.), which could not but be a well-known incident in the early church, would have hindered any one who had not clear information upon the point from recording the answer of the Jews “It is not lawful for us to put any one to death” (18:31); and so in fact these words were afterwards misunderstood by the Greek fathers.
The language of the fourth gospel, moreover, while written in Greek, is deeply infused with Hebrew idioms and modes of thought. This indicates that the writer thought in Hebrew or Aramaic patterns and only afterward expressed those thoughts in Greek. John’s limited vocabulary and simple syntax, suggest that Greek is the author’s second language, with Aramaic being his first. This is further evinced by John’s use of conjunctions — e.g. his frequent use of καί for adversative in addition to coordinative conjunction, like the Aramaic ו (vav) (see John 1:5, 10; 3:10, 11, 19, 32; 4:20; 5:40; 6:70; 7:4, 19, 26, 30; 8:49, 55, etc.). On multiple occasions, John’s quotations of the Old Testament are closer to the Hebrew text than to the Septuagint — e.g. Jn 12:14, 12:10, 13:18, and 19:37.
The author was a native of Palestine
Among the various lines of evidence for the author being a native of Palestine, Brooke F. Westcott notes that “the most convincing perhaps is to be found in his local knowledge. He speaks of places with an unaffected precision, as familiar in every case with the scene which he wishes to recall. There is no effort, no elaborateness of description in his narratives: he moves about in a country which he knows.” [49] For example, John refers to Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1, 11), from which he went down (2:12) to arrive at Capernaum. Capernaum (at approximately 827 feet above sea level) is indeed downhill of Cana of Galilee (located on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, around 690 feet below sea level) in terms of elevation. Cana was hardly a prominent city. Even Jews from other parts of the Roman world, much less Gentiles in Ephesus, would probably not have heard of it. The very mention of Cana at all shows a strong connection and familiarity with a highly specific locale. This fits well with John the son of Zebedee, a native of Galilee, but not at all well with a “Johannine community” or some anonymous author and/or editor.
Moreover, John refers to Bethany beyond Jordan (Jn 1:28), distinguishing it from the better known Bethany “near Jerusalem”, which is precisely described as being “about fifteen furlongs [i.e., two miles] off,” (Jn 11:18). Ephraim is described as being “the region near the wilderness,” (Jn 11:54). John gives the dimensions of the Sea of Galilee, which he calls by its other name, the Sea of Tiberias (Jn 6:19 — compare with Mark 6:47). Westcott also observes, “The prospect of the corn-fields (v. 35), and of the heights of Gerizim (v. 20), are details which belong to the knowledge of an eye-witness. The notice of the depth of the well (v. 11) bears equally the stamp of authenticity.” [50]
Westcott further argues [51],
The notices of the topography of Jerusalem contained in the fourth Gospel are still more conclusive as to its authorship than the notices of isolated places in Palestine. The desolation of Jerusalem after its capture was complete. No creative genius can call into being a lost site. And the writer of the fourth Gospel is evidently at home in the city as it was before its fall. He knows much that we learn from independent testimony, and he knows what is not to be found elsewhere. But whether he mentions spots known from other sources, or named only by himself, he speaks simply and certainly. As he recalls a familiar scene he lives again in the past, and forgets the desolation which had fallen upon the place which rises before his eyes. “There is,” he writes, “at Jerusalem a pool called Bethesda” (5:2), and by the form of the sentence carries us back to the time when the incident first became history. “Bethesda by the sheep-gate,” “the pool of Siloam” (9:7), “the brook Kidron” (18:1), which are not named by the other evangelists (yet see Luke 13:4), stand out naturally in his narrative. What imagination could have invented a Bethesda (or Bethzetha) with its five porches, and exact locality (5:2)? What except habitual usage would have caused the Kidron to be described as “the winter torrent”? How long must the name Siloam have been pondered over before the perfectly admissible rendering “Sent” was seen to carry with it a typical significance? The Prœtorium and Golgotha are mentioned by the other evangelists; but even here the writer of the fourth Gospel sees the localities, if I may so speak, with the vividness of an actual spectator. The Jews crowd round the Prætorturm which they will not enter, and Pilate goes in and out before them (18:28 ff.). Golgotha is “nigh to the city,” where people pass to and fro, and “there was a garden there” (19:17, 19:20, 19:41). And the fourth Evangelist alone notices the Pavement, the raised platform of judgment, with its Hebrew title, Gabbatha (19:13). The places Bethesda and Gabbatha are not, in fact, mentioned anywhere except in the fourth Gospel, and the perfect simplicity with which they are introduced in the narrative, no less than the accuracy of form in the Aramaic titles (whatever be the true reading of Bethesda), marks the work of a Palestinian Jew, who had known Jerusalem before its fall.
The author was an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry
The information surveyed in the foregoing discussion provides ample reason for believing that the author of the fourth gospel was an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, particularly given the numerous specific details that may be historically confirmed. We also saw previously that the author of the fourth gospel himself claims to have been an eyewitness. Moreover, Westcott notes that John’s “narrative is marked by minute details of persons, and time, and number, and place and manner, which cannot but have come from a direct experience. And to these must be added various notes of fact, so to speak, which seem to have no special significance where they stand, though they become intelligible when referred to the impression originally made upon the memory of the Evangelist.” [52] For example, John supplies details about specific persons [53]
The first chapter is crowded with figures which live and move: John with his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael. Momentous questions are connected with definite persons. He saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?… Philip answered him … (6:5, 6:7; comp. Matt. 14:14 ff. and parallels). Certain Greeks said to Philip, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh and Philip and they tell Jesus (12:21 f.). Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how do we know the way? (14:5). Philip saith, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us (14:8). Judas saith, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world? (14:22). The disciple whom Jesus loved … falling back upon His breast, saith, Lord, who is it? (13:25; comp. 21:20). Nicodemus (3:1 ff., 7:50, 19:39), Lazarus (11:1 ff., 12:1 ff.), Simon the father of Judas Iscariot (6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 13:26), and Malchus (18:10), are mentioned only in the fourth Gospel. The writer of this Gospel alone mentions the relationship of Annas to Caiaphas (18:13), and identifies one of those who pointed to Peter as the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off (18:26).
John also provides specific details about time. Westcott notes [54],
The details of time belong perhaps more obviously to the plan of the narrative than the details of persons. The greater seasons, even though they are not noted in the Synoptists, may be supposed to have been preserved in tradition, as the first Passover (2:13, 2:23), the Feast of the New Year (5:1), the Second Passover (6:4), the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), the Feast of Dedication (10:22); but other specifications of date can only be referred to the knowledge of actual experience. Such are the indications of the two marked weeks at the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry (1:29, 1:35, 1:43, 2:1, 12:1, 12:12 (13:1), 19:31, 20:1), of the week after the Resurrection (20:26), the enumeration of the days before the raising of Lazarus (11:6, 11:17, 11:39), the note of the duration of Christ’s stay in Samaria (4:40, 4:43; compare also 6:22, 7:14, 7:37). Still more remarkable is the mention of the hour or of the time of day which occurs under circumstances likely to have impressed it upon the mind of the writer, as the tenth hour (1:40), the sixth hour (4:6), the seventh hour (4:52), about the sixth hour (19:14), it was night (13:30), in the early morning (18:28, 20:1, 21:4), the evening (6:16, 20:19), by night (3:2).
Moreover, John is the only evangelist to note that the arrival at Bethany was six days before Passover (Jn 12:1) and that this was the day prior to the triumphal entry (Jn 12:12), a detail we confirmed earlier by virtue of an undesigned coincidence with Mark. The various marks of time are too numerous and precise to be the product of one who was receiving his information at multiple removes through oral tradition.
John also provides numerous specific details about numbers. Westcott explains [55],
The details of number, though fewer, are hardly less significant. It is unnatural to refer to anything except experience such definite and, as it appears, immaterial statements as those in which the writer of the fourth Gospel mentions the two disciples of the Baptist (1:35), the six waterpots (2:6), the five loaves and two small fishes (6:9), the five-and-twenty furlongs (6:19), the four soldiers (19:23. Cp. Acts 12:4), the two hundred cubits (21:8), the hundred and fifty and three fishes (21:11). The number of the loaves and fishes is preserved in the Synoptic narrative, but this single parallel does not in any way lessen the value of the whole group of examples as a sign of immediate observation in the Evangelist. Other records of number shew the clearness if not the directness of the writer’s information, as the five husbands (4:18), the thirty and eight years sickness (5:5), the estimate of three hundred pence (12:5; comp. Mark 14:5), the weight of a hundred pounds (19:39).
John also gives precise information about places. Westcott summarizes [56]:
We cannot naturally account for the particularity except on the supposition that the place was an integral part of the recollection of the incidents. Thus the scenes of John’s baptism are given at Bethany and Ænon (1:28, 3:23; comp. 10:40). The son of the noble-man was sick at Capernaum while Jesus was at Cana (4:46 f.). Jesus found the paralytic whom He had healed in the Temple (5:14). He gained many adherents when He went towards the close of His ministry beyond Jordan to the place where John was at first baptizing (10:40 ff.). When Mary came to Him He had not yet come to the village, but was in the place where Martha met Him (11:30). He spent the interval between the raising of Lazarus and His return to Bethany on the eve of the Passion in the country near the wilderness, in a city called Ephraim (11:54). The people as they stood in the Temple speculated or His reappearance (11:56).
So again Christ spoke certain memorable words in a solemn gathering (ἐν συναγωγῇ) at Capernaum (6:59, note), in the treasury (8:20), in Solomon’s porch (10:23), before crossing the Cedron (18:1).
Westcott further notes the numerous unnecessary details in John’s gospel, which “evince either the skill of a consummate artist or the rcollection of an observer.” [57] He argues, “The former alternative is excluded alike by the literary spirit of the first and second centuries and by the whole character of the Gospel. The writer evidently reflects what he had seen.” [58] He observes [59],
This will appear most clearly to any one who takes the record of a special scene and marks the several points which seem to reveal the impressions of an eye-witness, as (for example) the calling of the first disciples (1:35–51), or the foot-washing (13:1–20), or the scene in the high-priest’s court (18:15–27), or the draught of fishes (21:1–14). In each one of these narratives, and they are simply samples of the nature of the whole narrative, it is almost impossible to overlook the vivid touches which correspond with the actual experience of one who had looked upon what he describes. Thus, to take a single illustration from the first (1:35–51), we cannot but feel the life (so to speak) of the opening picture. John is shewn standing, in patient expectation of the issue, as the tense implies (εἱστήκει, comp. 7:37, 18:5, 18:16, 18:18, 19:25, 20:11), with two of his disciples. As Christ moves away, now separate from him, he fixes his eyes upon Him (ἐμβλέψας, comp. v. 43), so as to give the full meaning to the phrase which he repeats, in order that his disciples may now, if they will, take the lesson to themselves. Each word tells; each person occupies exactly the position which corresponds to the crisis. And the description becomes more significant when contrasted with the notice of the corresponding incident on the former day (1:29 ff.).
Not to dwell at length on these scenes, one or two detached phrases may be quoted which will serve to shew the kind of particularity on which stress is laid. The loaves used at the feeding of the five thousand are barley loaves which a boy has (6:9; comp. v. 13); when Mary came to Jesus she fell at His feet (11:32; contrast vv. 20 f.); after the ointment was poured out the house was filled from its fragrance (12:3); the branches strewn in the way of Jesus were taken from the palm-trees which were by the road-side (12:13); it was night when Judas went forth (13:30); Judas brings a band of Roman soldiers as well as officers of the priests to apprehend Jesus (18:3); Christ’s tunic was without seam, woven from the top throughout (19:23); the napkin which had been about His head was wrapped together in a place by itself (20:7); Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? (21:17).
Compare also 13:24, 18:6, 19:5, 21:20. Each phrase is a reflection of a definite external impression. They bring the scenes as vividly before the reader as they must have presented themselves to the writer.
Westcott concludes this section by addressing an anticipated objection [60]:
If it be said that we can conceive that these traits might have been realised by the imagination of a Defoe or a Shakespeare, it may be enough to reply that the narrative is wholly removed from this modern realism; but besides this, there are other fragmentary notes to which no such explanation can apply. Sometimes we find historical details given bearing the stamp of authenticity, which represent minute facts likely to cling to the memory of one directly concerned (1:40), though it is in fact difficult for us now to grasp the object of the writer in preserving them. It is equally impossible to suppose that such details were preserved in common tradition or supplied by the imagination of the writer. Examples are found in the exact account of Andrew finding first his own brother Simon (1:41), of the passing visit to Capernaum (2:12), of John’s baptism (3:23), of the boats from Tiberias (6:22 f.), of the retirement to Ephraim (11:54).
Sometimes the detail even appears to be in conflict with the context or with the current (Synoptic) accounts, though the discrepancy vanishes on a fuller realisation of the facts, as when the words Arise, let us go hence (14:31) mark the separation between the discourses in the upper chamber and those on the way to the garden (compare 1:21 with Matt. 11:14; 3:24 with Matt. 4:12).
The author was one of Jesus’ inner circle
Westcott further lays out an argument that the author of the fourth gospel was an apostle — that is, he was among Jesus’ inner circle. Westcott observes [61],
Such touches as those which have been now enumerated, and every page of the Gospel will supply examples, shew that the writer was an eye-witness of many at least of the scenes which he describes. The age of minute historical romance had not yet come when the fourth Gospel was written, even if such a record could possibly be brought within the category. A further examination of the narrative shews that the eye-witness was also an apostle. This follows almost necessarily from the character of the scenes which he describes, evidently as has been shewn from his own knowledge, the call of the first disciples (1:19–34), the journey through Samaria (4), the feeding of the five thousand (6), the successive visits to Jerusalem (7, 9, 11), the Passion, the appearances after the Resurrection. But the fact is further indicated by the intimate acquaintance which he exhibits with the feelings of “the disciples.” He knows their thoughts at critical moments (2:11, 2:17, 2:22, 4:27, 6:19, 6:60 f., 12:16, 13:22, 13:28, 21:12; comp. Luke 24:8; Matt. 26:75). He recalls their words spoken among themselves (4:33, 16:17, 20:25, 21:3, 21:5) as to their Lord (4:31, 9:2, 11:8, 11:12, 16:29).
He is familiar with their places of resort (11:54, 18:2, 20:19).
He is acquainted with the imperfect or erroneous impressions received by them at one time, and afterwards corrected (2:21 f., 11:13, 12:16, 13:28, 20:9, 21:4).
And yet more than this, the writer of the fourth Gospel evidently stood very near to the Lord. He was conscious of His emotions (11:33, 13:21). He was in a position to be well acquainted with the grounds of His action (2:24 f., 4:1, 5:6, 6:15, 7:1, 16:19). Nor is this all; he speaks as one to whom the mind of the Lord was laid open. Before the feeding of the five thousand he writes, This He (Jesus) said trying him, for He Himself knew what He was about to do (6:6). Jesus knew in Himself the murmurings of the disciples (6:61); He knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that would betray Him (6:64); He knew the hour of His Passion (13:1, 13:3), and who should betray Him (13:11); He knew indeed all the things that were coming upon Him (18:4); He knew when all things were accomplished (19:28).
The author was John the Son of Zebedee
There is also specific internal evidence that confirms the author’s identification as the disciple whom Jesus loved (and by extension corroborates that he was John the son of Zebedee). In John 18:10, the author gives us a piece of information not found in any other gospel — the name of the high priest’s servant whose ear Peter struck off — Malchus. Given that this detail is found in no other account, one might well wonder how John came to know the name of the high priest’s servant. The author apparently also knows that one of those who inquired of Peter in the high priest’s courtyard was a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off (John 18:26-27) — again, a detail supplied by none of the other gospels. In John 18:15-16, we learn that “Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in,” (emphasis added). In John 19:26, we learn that the disciple whom Jesus loved was standing by the foot of the cross, and in John 20:2-3, Peter is listed along with another individual who is designated “the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.” We can infer, then, that the disciple who followed Jesus along with Peter was in fact the disciple whom Jesus loved. Given that this is also the claimed author of the gospel (John 21:24), this illuminates why this author uniquely knew the name of the high priest’s servant and that the other individual in the high priest’s courtyard was a relative of this man. One might of course object that it would be unlikely for a Galilean fisherman to be known to the high priest. But this is to do a priori history — determining, some two thousand years removed, who could have known who — and there is no further information on what precisely the nature of their acquaintance was. This argument, therefore, tends to confirm the identification of the author as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and by extension John the son of Zebedee.
Another interesting observation, though I would rate this as a weaker (but nonetheless significant) point, is the absence of a disambiguator associated with John the Baptist (contrast this with the narrator’s quite meticulous distinction between the two individuals called Judas — Iscariot and “not Iscariot” in John 14:22). John was the fifth most popular male Jewish name in the region of Palestine at this time, and every other high frequency name in John’s gospel, with this lone exception, is given a disambiguator. Lydia McGrew comments that [62],
If the author himself was named John, he would not have been in the habit of disambiguating his own name, because he would not commonly be speaking of himself in the third person, and the only other prominent person in his narrative named John would be, in fact, John the Baptist. Perhaps under those circumstances John the Baptist would simply become ‘John’ in the mind and voice of the author when telling these particular stories.
It is also not insignificant that the scenes where the beloved disciple is said to have been present (such as the conversation at the last supper, or the events in Caiaphas’ courtyard) are those scenes that contain the most detail and vividness.
By inspecting the lists of disciples present in 1:35ff and 21:2, including cross-references with the synoptic gospels, we can deduce that the beloved disciple has to have been either Andrew, Peter, James, or John. Peter is excluded, since the beloved disciple appears with Peter in multiple scenes (Jn 13:23-24; 18:15-16; 20:2-9; 21:7,20-23). James was martyred too early to have been the author (Acts 12:1). This leaves either Andrew or John. Andrew is mentioned by name a few times, though (Jn 1:40,44; 6:8; 12:22), whereas John is never mentioned by name. This makes sense if the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is being used by the author as a substitute for John the son of Zebedee. Furthermore, the Beloved Disciple is depicted alongside Peter, notably in John 18, 20 and 21. This parallels the close relationship between Peter and John in the synoptics and Acts (Mk 5:37 / Lk 8:51; Mt 17:1 / Mk 9:2 / Lk 9:28; Mt 26:37 / Mark 14:33; Lk 5:10; Lk 22:8) suggesting again that the Beloved Disciple is John the son of Zebedee.
Though I acknowledge that there are a few scholarly views regarding the specific identity of the beloved disciple (e.g. Ben Witherington’s thesis that he is Lazarus [63], or Richard Bauckham’s thesis that he is another individual by the name of John the Elder, also an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry [64]), I will not provide a detailed review here. Suffice it to say that I am persuaded, for the reasons given above, that the best identification of the beloved disciple is that he is John the son of Zebedee, which is also consistent with the Patristic evidence reviewed below. For a good critical response to Bauckham’s thesis I recommend the appendix of The Eye of the Beholder by Lydia McGrew. [65] Perhaps the point against Witherington’s proposal that the beloved disciple is to be identified with Lazarus is that John 12:10-11 indicates that “the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.” It would be quite surprising, then, only days after this incident he was allowed into the high priest’s courtyard due to being known by the high priest (Jn 18:15).
It is sometimes alleged that John could not be the author because he was a Galilean fisherman and unlikely to be literate in Greek. For example, Bart Ehrman argues, “There are good reasons for thinking that none of these attributions is right. For one thing, the followers of Jesus, as we learn from the New Testament itself, were uneducated lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews from Palestine. These books are not written by people like that. Their authors were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation.” [66] However, we know very little about Mark (who is only alluded to in Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37-39; and Colossians 4:10). So, this critique can hardly be applied to him. Luke was a medical physician (Colossians 4:14), so can hardly be considered to be uneducated. Matthew was a tax collector and therefore probably literate, and likely would have known how to write in Greek, the primary language of commerce at the time. Indeed, Bart Ehrman notes in Misquoting Jesus, “Throughout most of antiquity, since most people could not write, there were local ‘readers’ and ‘writers’ who hired out their services to people who needed to conduct business that required written texts; tax receipts, legal contracts, licenses, personal letters, and the like,” (emphasis added) [67]. It is thus not at all implausible that Matthew was literate. This critique, then, only applies to John. But John seems to have been relatively well off (Mk 1:19-20 indicates that his father, Zebedee, was sufficiently wealthy that he could afford to pay hired servants). This means that he could plausibly have afforded an amanuensis (scribe) or even learned Greek at some point (the early church indicates that John wrote his gospel when he was well advanced in years). It may also be observed that John’s Greek is replete with characteristics that suggest the author’s first language was Aramaic, as previously discussed. Such characteristics include his simple syntax and limited vocabulary, and his use of conjunctions — for instance, his frequent use of καί for adversative in addition to coordinative conjunction, like the Aramaic. Furthermore, as noted previously, when quoting the Old Testament, the text often more closely resembles the Hebrew text than it does the Greek Septuagint (e.g. John 12:14-15; 12:40; 13:18; and 19:37).
Even if John’s identity as a Galilean fisherman (prior to joining Jesus’ ministry) establishes a low prior probability of him being able to compose the fourth gospel, I would contend that the positive evidence is sufficiently compelling to nonetheless yield a high posterior likelihood.
External Evidence
I now turn my attention to the external evidence for John the son of Zebedee being the author of the fourth gospel. Among the patristic sources, the most significant in terms of validating the authorship of the gospels, particularly John’s gospel, is Iranaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus is particularly significant, since he was self-confessedly a disciple of Polycarp (as quoted in Eus., Hist. eccl. 5.20.6), who was personally acquainted with, and instructed by, the apostles (Iren., Adv. Haer. 3.3.4), and a disciple of the apostle John (Against Heresies 5.33.4). This puts him at only one remove from the apostles themselves and John in particular. This is of especial significance in corroborating the authorship of John’s gospel. In Against Heresies 3.1.1, he writes [68],
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
In addition, the fourth gospel is attributed to John the son of Zebedee by Clement of Alexandria (Eus., Hist. eccl. 6.14.7), by Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Marc. 4.2), by Origen (Eus., Hist. eccl. 6.25.9) and by the second century Muratorian canon. There are no competing authorship traditions. Eusebius also asserts that “of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.” (Hist. eccl. 3.24.17). [69] He does not assert this for all of the books of the New Testament — in fact, he also notes in the sentence that follows this statement that “the other two [epistles of John] are disputed.” [70] The fact that the authorship of the gospel of John was never disputed is quite significant, particularly since the earliest witnesses to its composition by John have a wide geographical spread — Irenaeus in Gaul (modern day France), Clement in Egypt, Tertullian in North Africa, and Origen in Egypt (he later also lived in Caesarea Maritima). This geographic spread suggests broad transmission of the traditions concerning authorship. At least two independent lines of attestation exist — Irenaeus via Polycarp (the Asia Minor tradition) and Clement/Origen (the Alexandrian tradition). A probable third line may be found in Tertullian (Latin West / North African tradition), if his testimony is not merely derivative of Irenaeus. This multiplicity strengthens the case that belief in Johannine authorship was not localized or invented late, but rather was widespread and rooted in diverse early traditions.
It may further be noted that Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century (prior to any of the sources given above, which, with the exception of Eusebius were composed in the late second to early third centuries) wrote of “the memoirs composed by [the apostles], which are called Gospels,” (1 Apol. 66). [71] Moreover, he states elsewhere that “on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” [72] Graham Stanton comments, “[A]s soon as Christian communities regularly used more than one written account of the actions and teachings of Jesus, it would have been necessary to distinguish them by some form of title, especially in the context of readings at worship.” In light of this, it is quite striking that there is never any controversy among the early church, that has left a record, concerning the authorship of John’s gospel (or, for that matter, any other canonical gospel). Justin Martyr indicates that the canonical gospels were widely considered to be on par, in terms of authority, with the Hebrew prophets. Furthermore, he writes elsewhere of “the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them,” (Dial. 103). [73] This implies a minimum of two gospels composed by the apostles and a minimum of two that were written by those who followed them. This is quite consistent with the traditional attribution of the first and fourth gospels being composed by Matthew and John, and the second and third being composed by Mark and Luke. Moreover, Justin Martyr’s student, Tatian, wrote the Diatessaron, which is a harmony of the four canonical gospels, where he weaves them into a single continuous narrative. This suggests that Justin Martyr was also familiar with the traditionally assigned authors. Further supporting this, Justin Martyr shows familiarity with the canonical gospels. In the case of John’s gospel, for example, he quotes a text that is found uniquely in John 3:5 (1 Apol. 61).
The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John
We now turn to the significance of the evidence adduced in the foregoing. If the fourth gospel was written by an eyewitness, what are the implications for the case for Christianity? If, as I have argued, John was a disciple, then he was purportedly present for the resurrection appearances, recounted in John 20 and 21, in Jerusalem and Galilee. These appearances were not the sort about which one could be plausibly sincerely mistaken, for they involved multisensory and intersubjective encounters with the raised Jesus, involving group conversations and physical contact. According to John 21, Jesus even cooked breakfast for seven disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Moreover, the appearances occur in different settings — both indoors and out of doors, in Jerusalem and Galilee.
Is John 21 an interpolation?
Though some scholars have maintained that chapter 21 is a later addition by an author other than the one who composed the rest of the gospel, this seems to me to be unlikely. Craig Keener, for example, comments [74],
…apart from the special vocabulary needed for the matters at hand (such as fishing), the vocabulary does not differ significantly from that of analogous portions of the Gospel. Various features reveal Johannine style; for example, “the variation of synonyms (verses 15–17), the double ‘Amen’ (verse 18), the construction ‘This he said, indicating …’ (verse 19; cf. 12:33)”; only in this Gospel is the lake called the “Sea of Tiberias” (21:1; 6:1). Smalley rightly notes that “its general flavour is characteristically Johannine” and that John 21 ties up loose ends previously introduced in the Gospel. Westcott, who regarded the chapter as an appendix, nevertheless insisted that it stemmed from the author of the Gospel, noting its “style and the general character of the language”; he also observed that we lack any textual evidence that the Gospel ever circulated without this “appendix.” The “appendix” itself notes the beloved disciple’s presence (21:7), which, if taken at face value, allows for the same source as the rest of the Gospel.
Keener further explains in a footnote, “There are twenty-eight terms that appear nowhere else in John, but similar figures may obtain for terms in some of the other chapters. E.g., nearly 20 percent of the words in John 11:2 apply only or almost only to the Lazarus narrative, two or three times higher than the percentage in John 21.” [75] Along similar lines, Don Carson notes [76],
There are linguistic considerations. Bultmann (pp. 700–701) offers one of the more detailed analyses of the twenty-eight words that appear in ch. 21 but nowhere else in the Fourth Gospel. Most of these are so tied to the subject matter that they cannot be viewed as particularly significant: e.g. the Greek words for ‘fish’, ‘net’, ‘feed’, ‘take care of [my sheep]’, ‘he wrapped’, ‘naked’ and the like. A few words and constructions, however, cannot be dismissed so easily: e.g. in v. 12, the verb ‘to ask’ is exetazō, rather than the expected erōtaō; in v. 5 the disciples are addressed as paidia rather than the teknia used in 1:12; and so forth. Some of these are surely a reflection of the fact that John, as we have repeatedly observed, has a penchant for synonyms. In the case of paidia, the term appears frequently in 1 John, while within John 1–20 the alternative teknia is never used in direct address.
Over against these bits of evidence stand a number of places where ch. 21 exhibits vocabulary or syntactical constructions typical of chs. 1–20. These include not only obvious units such as the double amēn behind v. 18 (cf. notes on 1:51), and the variation of synonyms that characterize vv. 15–17, but fairly obscure constructions such as the opening words of v. 19 (cf. 12:33). Plummer (pp. 348–357) provides a list of twenty-five such units. Some are found in John 21 and predominantly in John 1–20 (e.g. the particle mentoi in 21:4 also occurs in Jn. 4:27; 7:13; 12:42; 20:5, and elsewhere in the New Testament is found only three times); others are found in John 21 and elsewhere exclusively in John 1–20 (e.g. Cana, 21:2 and 2:1; 4:46; Didymus, 21:2 and 11:16; 20:24).
An additional point is Jesus’ tendency, in John’s gospel, to refer to Peter as “Simon, son of John,” which is found in John 21:15, 16, 17. Jesus also calls Peter by this name in John 1:42. Contrast this with Matthew 16:17, where Peter is referred to as “Simon, son of Jonah.” Doubtless this was a variant version of the name, but John, when recording Jesus’ addressing Peter, records it as “son of John” in both places. These points, taken in aggregate, suggest that the author of chapter 21 is the same author as the preceding text. Thomas is also called “the Twin” in this text (Jn 21:2), just as he is in John 11:16 and 20:24.
Evidentially Significant Features of John’s Resurrection Narrative
A number of features of John’s resurrection account stand out as evidentially significant, and I now turn my focus to these.
Do you love me more than these?
In John 20:15, Jesus asks Peter, following breakfast, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” The most widely accepted interpretation of this question understands Jesus as asking Peter whether he loves him more than the other disciples do. This has grammatical support, since the phrase πλεῖον τούτων uses the genitive plural of the demonstrative pronoun, τούτων (“of these”). In Greek, a partitive genitive is often used after comparatives like πλεῖον (“more”) to indicate the group being compared with. Thus, the construction naturally suggests taking Jesus to be asking Peter if he loves him “more than these [do].” There is, in fact, a similar construction in Matthew 10:31, where Jesus says “you are of more value than many sparrows,” which treats both entities being compared as the subjects of the verb. This raises the question of why Jesus is asking Peter whether he loves him more than the other disciples do.
When we turn to the synoptic gospels, we are given a detail not supplied by John — that prior to Jesus’ death, Peter had boasted that he was the most faithful of Jesus’ disciples — “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away,” (Mt 26:33; cf. Mk 14:29). Lydia McGrew comments on the significance of this undesigned coincidence [77]:
Suppose that Jesus never rose from the dead and that the story of the breakfast by the Sea of Galilee were invented. Why, if that were the case, would the Gospel of John contain this bit of conversation that alludes to an earlier event, though John’s Gospel does not include the earlier story? Such an omission serves no literary purpose. Someone writing a literary work containing back-references and foreshadowings includes all of those aspects in the work. Similarly, if the author of John were careless about historicity and were including a legend that had grown up in some way in the Christian community, it seems that he would be more likely at least to include the story of Peter’s boast which explains this aspect of such a legend. He might even go so far as to make an explicit connection between the two passages. If, on the other hand, the author of John was a disciple and remembered the conversation, his intent in writing was not to produce a literary work or even a connected series of legendary stories. Rather, as a witness, he put down what was said because that was how he remembered it, casually, without bothering about including everything necessary to explain precisely why Jesus said this or that.
This undesigned coincidence between John and the synoptics is best explained if the event described in John 21, which occurred after his resurrection, is historical.
Unnecessary Details
John 21 is replete with unnecessary details that are surprising if the account is a fictitious creation. For example, John indicates that there were only seven disciples present for this encounter in Galilee. Why make this up? He then proceeds to list only five of them by name (Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee). He further adds that there were also “two others of his disciples.” Why not include the name of the other two? Moreover, Nathanael in particular is one of the most obscure disciples. He is mentioned by this name only in John’s gospel, and is only referred to at all in this chapter as well as in chapter 1. Other disciples, who are referred to more frequently in John (e.g. Philip and Andrew) are not mentioned here at all. This partial naming, without any literary payoff, aligns with the kind of selectivity found in real, memory-based reportage—where the author simply remembers or notes whom he knows or considers relevant.
John 21:11 specifies that the number of fish that were hauled ashore was 153. This is a very precise number. Such specificity is characteristic of eyewitness reporting rather than invention.
The reference to Peter putting on his outer garment before jumping into the sea (Jn 21:7) is quite odd. Apparently he was stripped for work and then dressed to swim. This strange detail seems unnecessary unless it reflects genuine memory of what happened.
Jesus passes through closed doors.
Another curious feature of John’s resurrection narrative is Jesus’ apparent passage through closed doors (Jn 20:19, 26). This is particularly surprising given John’s emphasis on refuting Docetic Gnosticism, which rejected the physicality of the incarnation (e.g. Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2-3). N.T. Wright puts it like this: “If I were making up a narrative in, say, 95 c.e. because I knew that some of my folk were a little insecure on the question of whether Jesus was a really solid human being, I wouldn’t put all that material in. It’s a kind of ‘own goal.’” [78] That John includes these details is, therefore, another marker of historical reportage.
An Examination of Alleged Discrepancies Between John and the Synoptics on the Resurrection
A number of contradictions are alleged by skeptics between John’s gospel and the synoptic accounts of the resurrection. Here, I shall offer some brief perspectives on these. For a more comprehensive treatment of this subject, I refer readers to The Easter Enigma, by John Wenham. [79]
The Women
According to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). Moreover, if one were to read John 20:1 in isolation, one might come away with the impression that she was the only woman who visited the tomb on Sunday morning. One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him,” (emphasis added). The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.
According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her; we do not know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.
We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.
Had the sun risen, or was it still dark?
Another alleged discrepancy is that Mary came to the tomb, according to John 20:1, “while it was still dark,” whereas Luke 24:1 indicates that the sun had risen. The expression used by Luke is ὄρθρου βαθέως, literally meaning “deep dawn.” It refers to the very early hours of the morning. This is rendered “early dawn” by the ESV. It is not at all implausible to think that at early dawn it would still be somewhat dark. In Mark 16:2, it is said that “the sun had risen.” But the earlier part of verse 2 indicates, in accord with Luke’s account, that it was “very early on the first day of the week.” Moreover, the verb ἀνατέλλω can be used of the earliest rays of the sun, not necessarily full daylight. For instance, in Luke 1:78, Zechariah says, ἡμᾶς ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους (“the sunrise shall visit us from on high”). Clearly, this alludes to the light from the sun beginning to appear. Since this reading of Mark 16:2b accords with the language of Luke, and is also consistent with Mark 16:2a, I am inclined to favor this rendering.
Was the first appearance in Jerusalem or Galilee?
While John and Luke both explicitly affirm that the first appearance to the eleven was in Jerusalem, Mark and Matthew only mention a Galilee appearance (and only Matthew actually narrates this appearance). In Matthew 28:10, Jesus says, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” Similarly, in Mark 16:7, the angel tells the women, “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” Why is this instruction given to the women if Jesus will be meeting the disciples that very day in Jerusalem? Jesus’ disciples (μαθηταί) actually refers to a larger group than only the twelve. Indeed, Luke 6:13 indicates that the twelve were selected from among the disciples. Luke 10:1 refers to seventy (or seventy-two) of Jesus’ disciples. Joseph of Arimathea is called a disciple (Mt 27:57), as is Ananias of Damascus (Acts 9:10) and Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36). Clearly, then, the phrases “my brothers” (Mt 28:10) and “his disciples” (Mk 16:7) can refer to a broader group than simply the eleven. Most probably, the appearance on the mountain in Galilee, narrated in Matthew 28:16-20, is to a larger group than simply the eleven. Matthew 28:16 indicates that “the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them,” indicating that the meeting was with prior appointment and may well have been to a larger group. Plausibly, it could even be the same appearance as that to the 500 referred to by Paul (1 Cor 15:6).
It is sometimes noted that Matthew 28:17 indicates that “when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted,” (Καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.). If the eleven had already interacted with the raised Jesus prior to this, why would some continue to doubt when encountering him in Galilee? There are two possible solutions here. Don Carson suggests that the statement “but some doubted” should be interpreted to contrast those who worshipped him (i.e., the eleven) with those who doubted. He writes [80]:
Does “some” refer to “some of the Eleven” or to “some others” in addition to the Eleven? The question is partly decided by one’s interpretation of v. 10, though more can be said. If proskyneō here means not merely “kneel” or “make obeisance to” but “worship” (see on v. 9), then the “eleven disciples” and the “some” probably constitute two groups; for doubt about who Jesus is or about the reality of his resurrection does not seem appropriate for true worship. Especially if Matthew was an eyewitness, it is easy to believe that he describes a scene vivid in his own memory without taking all the precautions that would remove questions from the minds of readers who were not there. As a result, both here and in v. 10 Matthew in an incidental fashion alludes to the larger crowd without providing useful specifics. Moreover hoi de, here as in 26:67, means “but some,” in contrast with those already mentioned, rather than “but they” (cf. Gundry, Matthew). While this solution is not certain, the problem is not helped by suggesting that “some” refers to those in Matthew’s community who have doubts (Hill, Matthew).
There is also another possible reading. The Greek verb διστάζω occurs only one other time in the New Testament: in Matthew 14:31, where Peter, walking on the water toward Jesus, begins to sink and is rebuked by Jesus for doubting (“O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”). This suggests the doubt is not necessarily about recognition, but about hesitation, uncertainty, or lack of confidence. Possibly, the “doubt” could be about how to respond to the risen Jesus — i.e., whether worship is appropriate. The term διστάζω can also convey hesitation or wavering due to being overwhelmed.
Was Thomas present or absent?
It is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1. As for the reference to “the eleven” in verse 33, I am inclined to think that Luke simply was not aware of Thomas’ absence during the first appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem. This is only a very minor error on Luke’s part that does not substantially undermine his reliability.
Was John Sincere?
In a previous article, I have discussed in detail the evidence for the sincerity of the apostles in view of the dangers, hardships and persecutions they encountered. I would refer readers to that essay for a detailed exposition of the evidence of the context of persecution. In the book of Acts, John is included in the references to the twelve boldly proclaiming the resurrection at Pentecost, only seven weeks after Jesus’ own death at the instigation of the Jewish authorities, as well as subsequently (again, see my previous essay for a detailed discussion of this). John is explicitly said to have been arrested, along with Peter, by the priests, the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-3). They are held overnight and questioned by the Sanhedrin the following day (Acts 4:5-7). In Acts 5:28-32, the apostles (including John) defy the order of the high priest to stop teaching and preaching publicly, leading to them being beaten (Acts 5:40). According to verses 41-42, they rejoiced that “they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.”
According to Galatians 2:9, John rose to prominence as one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church (along with Simon Peter and James the brother of Jesus). Moreover, according to a number of patristic sources, John remained faithful into his old age (which implies that he went through the most intense bouts of persecution, under the reigns of Nero and Domitian. That John was willing to endure such tremendous dangers, hardships and sufferings on account of the gospel goes along way towards establishing his sincerity.
Further evidence of John’s sincerity is his track record of habitual truthfulness in the gospel of John, as documented in the foregoing.
The Martyrdom of Peter
A further contribution John makes to the case for the resurrection is that he is our earliest source that mentions the martyrdom of Peter, evincing Peter’s sincerity. In John 21:18, Jesus says “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” John adds, “This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God,” (v. 19). Though it takes the form of a prophecy attributed to Jesus, it seems unlikely (whether we take this saying to be authentic or not) that John would have attributed such a prediction to Jesus if Peter had not, in fact, died as a martyr (the early church held that John’s gospel was the last to be written, and it was likely composed towards the end of the first century).
Jesus’ Other Miracles
Besides the resurrection, John also documents various other miracles that are attributed to Jesus. These include the water turned into wine at the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1-11), the healing of the royal official’s son (Jn 4:46-54), the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, who had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years (Jn 5:1-15), the feeding of the five thousand (Jn 6:1-14), walking on water (Jn 6:16-21), healing of the man born blind (Jn 9:1-41), and the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44). For most of these miracles, Jesus’ disciples are explicitly said to be present (presumably including John, who was among Jesus’ most intimate circle), and these are not the sort of experiences that one might be plausibly sincerely mistaken about.
For a number of these, there are also specific evidences that bear directly on these accounts, indicating that they are the testimony of an eyewitness (aside from the broad case, developed above, for the author of the fourth gospel being an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry). For example, in the case of the wedding at Cana, where Jesus turned the water into wine, John is quite specific that “there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons,” (Jn 2:6; emphasis added). One might wonder why these stone water jars were empty rather than full. Empty jars are not particularly useful for the rites of purification. The explanation of this is supplied in Mark 7:3-4, which indicates that “the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.” John does not take any time out to explain this background for his gentile readers. He just wants to move on with his story, and does not seem to care what is or is not common knowledge to his gentile readers. Indeed, the very fact that Mark explains this background suggests that it was not common knowledge.
Or consider the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, who had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years (Jn 5:1-15), this prompts the challenge in John 7:21-24 concerning Jesus’ healing this man on the Sabbath. Previously in this essay, I argued for the authenticity of Jesus’ response to this charge, by comparison of Jesus’ witty word parallel with other similar instances in two other gospels (Lk 13:15-16; Mt 23:23-24).
Earlier in this essay, I also adduced various lines of evidence, both in the form of undesigned coincidences as well as reconcilable variations between gospel accounts (revealing independence) for the feeding of the five thousand, recounted in John 6 (see my essay specifically on this, for a fuller discussion of this case).
It is in the context of the healing of the man born blind that Jesus refers to himself as “the light of the world,” (Jn 9:5) and declares that “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind,” (Jn 9:39). This reflects Jesus’ tendency (exhibited throughout all four gospels) to draw doctrine or raise a discourse from the occasion then before him.
Besides Jesus’ resurrection, the most climactic miracle in John’s gospel is the raising of Lazarus of Bethany, in chapter 11. The text explicitly indicates that Jesus’ disciples were present for this miracle (see verses 7, 11, 15-16). The disciples were also apparently present for the dinner , recounted in chapter 12, with Lazarus and his two sisters in Bethany, subsequent to Lazarus being raised from the dead (see verse 4), where Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ disciples, speaks. Comparing the account with its parallel in Matthew also reveals the presence of the disciples (Mt 26:8). That the disciples were in Bethany with Jesus prior to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem is also evident from Mark 16:1. According to the account in John 11, Lazarus had been dead for four days prior to being raised by Jesus (v. 17). This is therefore a miracle about which it is particularly difficult to envision an eyewitness being sincerely mistaken about — especially given the fact that they purportedly had dinner with Lazarus after his resurrection. The statement that “The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume,” (Jn 12:3) is the sort of detail that one might expect to be etched on the memory of an eyewitness who was present. Moreover, we saw previously that we can historically confirm the specific time reference in John 12:1 (that the arrival in Bethany was “six days before Passover” and that the triumphal entry took place the following day (Jn 12:12).
There is yet another reason to think that the account of the resurrection of Lazarus reflects the testimony of an eyewitness. Compare the account in John 11 concerning Lazarus’ two sisters, Mary and Martha, with a different account concerning the same individuals in Luke 10:
38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”
The behavior of Mary and Martha, in these two accounts, accord with one another in subtle and casual ways, suggesting that the two different accounts accurately represent the personalities of the same two historical sisters who lie behind them. Peter J. Williams observes [81],
Luke gives us a cameo of two contrasting characters: Martha, stressed about practicalities, and Mary, sitting, listening to Jesus’s teaching and ignoring any of the concerns of her hardworking sister. It is easy to imagine these sisters as contrasting personality types: one an activist and the other more contemplative.
In John we see the same two women after their brother has died. Jesus approaches their village. As soon as Martha hears, she goes to Jesus, while Mary “remained seated” at home (John 11:20). Immediately we see a coincidence in the Gospel descriptions, not of the event but of the types of responses. In both Luke and John, Mary sits while Martha acts. In both, Martha does the welcoming. After meeting Jesus, the ever-active Martha secretly sends a message to her sister that Jesus is calling her. Mary then gets up quickly, and those with her think she is going to weep at the tomb (John 11:31). Coming to Jesus, unlike her sister, “she fell at his feet” (John 11:32—recall that she was at Jesus’s feet in Luke too). Jesus sees her weeping (John 11:33), though there is no similar record that Martha weeps. After arriving at the tomb and himself weeping, Jesus commands for the stone to be moved. At this point Martha says, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days” (John 11:39). This extremely practical concern misses the point that Jesus is about to raise Lazarus from the dead.
Thus, in both accounts, Martha is concerned with practical matters and is the more active (notice also that she is also serving at dinner in John 12), while Mary is more contemplative — positioning herself at Jesus’ feet. It does not appear that John is using Luke to create these subtle behavioral parallels (which most readers miss). This, again, is indicative of historical reportage — confirming that John was, as he purports to be, an eyewitness to this event.
The Christological Trilemma
A final argument I will develop is the Christological Trilemma, most popularly associated with C.S. Lewis [82], though not original to him. This argument rests in particular on two major contentions — that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and also asserted his divine identity.
Jesus’ Messianic identity
The first of those is not controversial. Jesus makes his Messianic identity clear by his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (John 12:12-19), in deliberate fulfilment of Zechariah 9:9-111, which is widely acknowledged among the Jews to be Messianic. Moreover, Jesus explicitly tells the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah. We saw earlier how Jesus could be confident that the Samaritans would not confuse this revelation with Jewish national aspirations.
What is striking about Jesus’ Messianic mission is that it is radically different from the expectation that prevailed at the time. The Jews of this time sought for a militaristic sort of Messiah who would overthrow the Roman occupiers and re-establish a Davidic reign. There is an abundance of evidence for this both inside and outside of the New Testament. Indeed, the Messianic secret (particularly emphasized in the synoptics) revolves around this. Jesus is careful about who he discloses his Messianic identity to and urges people to keep it quiet. Moreover, he avoids crowds when possible. For example, Matthew 8:18: “Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side.” This is explained by John 6:15, which can even be viewed as an undesigned coincidence: “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” This Messianic expectation is also evident in Acts 1:6, where the disciples ask Jesus, after his resurrection, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” We also see hints of this expectation in the prayers of Zechariah and Simeon in Luke’s nativity narrative. For example, consider the following statements from the prayer of Zechariah: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us…” (Lk 1:68-71). Similarly, in the prayer of Simeon, we read, “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”
In addition to the New Testament evidence, the Dead Sea Scrolls also attest to this prevailing expectation (see in particular the War of the Messiah scroll). Josephus also indicates that there were a dozen or so Messianic claimants around this time period, every single one of whom (with the sole exception of Jesus) sought to cast themselves as this sort of Messiah. If Jesus were an imposter or a religious fanatic, he apparently decided to forego being this sort of Messiah (in accord with the prevailing expectations) and determined instead to be brutally put to death by crucifixion, arguably the most barbaric mode of execution ever devised. Not only was just willing to endure crucifixion on account of his radical claims, but he made it a central aspect of his Messianic mission. Previously in this article, we have discussed evidence bearing on the historicity of Jesus’ anticipation of his impending violent death and subsequent resurrection — in particular, John 2:19 and 18:11. Further support for this comes from Mark 8:31-33:
31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
This discourse seems to be highly unlikely to be an invention on the part of Mark, particularly in view of the fact that Peter , one of the leaders in the early church (and whom various patristic sources indicate was the primary source behind Mark’s gospel), rebukes Jesus, and Jesus in turn rebukes Peter, going so far as to call him Satan (or adversary). For another example, see my discussion of Luke 13:33 in this previous article. As Paley observes, the Messianic mission that Jesus pursued is extremely surprising if he was an impostor or religious fanatic [83]:
Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his enthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that, while he gave himself out to be the person intended by these predictions, he would have assumed the character to which they were universally supposed to relate.
Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the prevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of his attraction and success.
The argument up to this point rests only on the historicity of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah (a point which, as previously mentioned, is not controversial).
Jesus’ claim to divine identity
We can, however, go further, since Jesus not only asserted himself to be Israel’s Messiah, but also made the much more provocative claim to divine identity. For this, there is both indirect as well as direct evidence. The indirect evidence is that Jesus’ immediate followers (e.g. John) and those who succeeded them (e.g. Paul) consistently affirm Jesus’ deity. This is surprising, given the Jewish milieu, unless Jesus made this claim of himself. I will begin with the indirect evidence, adducing two examples from John by way of illustration. In John 1:1, the author writes, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” The Greek text says, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The anarthous predicative nominative (that is, the predicate noun that does not have the definite article), θεὸς precedes the verb, ἦν. In Greek grammar, this is taken as a qualitative — literally, what God was, the word also was. As Daniel Wallace explains,
The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.
Consistent with this, verse 3 indicates that “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Moreover, in verse 14, we read, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” There is probably an echo here of Isaiah 40:5 (“And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together”), particularly since Isaiah 40:3 is alluded to nine verses later (verse 23).
A further text in John that attests to Jesus’ deity is John 12:36-41:
When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. 37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
Verse 37 is possibly an echo of Numbers 14:11: “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?'” Verse 38 quotes Isaiah 53:1, and verse 40 quotes Isaiah 6:10. In verse 41, John adds, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.” The antecedent of αὐτοῦ (“his”) in this text is clearly Jesus, as is apparent from verse 42 (“Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him”, in context clearly Jesus). John is alluding to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 6, wherein we read in verse 1: Καὶ ἐγένετο τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, οὗ ἀπέθανεν Οζιας ὁ βασιλεύς, εἶδον τὸν κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ καὶ ἐπηρμένου, καὶ πλήρης ὁ οἶκος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (“And it came to pass in the year in which king Ozias died, that I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne, and the house was full of his glory,” emphasis added). According to the Greek text of Isaiah, Isaiah beheld the glory of the Lord God in the temple. According to John, this was the glory of Jesus. Again, it seems quite unlikely that someone so close to Jesus, particularly given the Jewish milieu, would have come to the conclusion that Jesus was God unless Jesus made this claim of himself.
There are also more direct lines of evidence for Jesus’ divine self-understanding — i.e. the various explicit statements that Jesus makes as to his identity, such as the following:
- John 6:35 — “I am the bread of life.”
- John 7:37: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'”
- John 8:12 — “I am the light of the world.”
- John 8:58 — “Before Abraham was, I am.”
- John 10:11 — “I am the good shepherd.”
- John 10:30 — “I and the Father are one.”
- John 10:38 — “The Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
- John 11:25 — “I am the resurrection and the life.”
- John 14:6 — “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”
- John 14:9 — “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
- John 15:1,5 — “I am the true vine.”
- John 17:5 — “Glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
Not all of the sayings listed above are equally explicit, and some require familiarity with the background of the Hebrew Scriptures. For economy of space, I will not provide a detailed exegesis of all of these sayings. However, I will offer brief comment on a few of them. Earlier in this essay, I argued that Jesus’ statements at the feast of tabernacles concerning the living water (Jn 7:37) and Jesus’ identity as the light of the world (Jn 8:12) are historically probable, especially when viewed in the context of the historical background relating to the practices associated with the feast of booths. As discussed previously, priests would draw water from the Pool of Siloam and pour it out at the base of the altar in the temple (b. Sukk. 4-5). This act symbolized both God’s past provision of water from the rock in the wilderness (Exod 17; Num 20) and future eschatological hope—that God would again pour out spiritual blessing, including His Spirit (see Ezek 47; Zech 14:8). Jesus steps into this liturgical moment and claims to be the one who fulfills it. When Jesus says, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink,” Jesus claims to be the source of the living water, which in Biblical prophecy is something only provided by God (Jer 2:13; Isa 55:1-3). Jesus replaces the temple ceremony with his own person — he is what the ritual ultimately pointed to. Jesus claims to be far more than merely a prophet or teacher — he places himself in the role that is uniquely fulfilled by Yahweh, the God of Israel — the fountain of life.
Jesus also claims to be “the light of the world” (Jn 8:12), fulfilling the lights ceremony connected to the feast of booths. In the Old Testament, God himself is described as light (e.g. Isa 60:19-20; Ps 271). The light ceremony at the feast of booths recalls God’s presence as a pillar of fire leading Israel in the wilderness (Exod 13:21). Given this context, Jesus’ statement, “I am the light of the world,” is a very radical claim, essentially asserting, “I am God’s presence in your midst, the fulfilment of the pillar of fire, the divine light that leads and saves.”
I also previously noted the significance of John 10:22 and its connection to Josephus’ description of the roofed walkways in the temple’s outer court (providing shelter from the elements of winter). John’s specific details about the time and place (during the feast of dedication, at winter, in Solomon’s colonnade) suggest that this episode was etched on the mind of an eyewitness. Moreover, Jesus’ retort to the Jews in verse 32 is consistent with Jesus’ sarcastic tone, or savage wit, exemplified elsewhere in the gospels across diverse episodes. Taken together, these points suggest that Jesus’ statement in verse 30, “I and the Father are one,” represents the historical Jesus. But to understand the full significance of Jesus’ declaration, we need to examine the full context, beginning from verse 25:
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
To one who is steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures (as Jesus’ original audience doubtless were), the allusions are unmistakable. Compare Jesus’ statements above with the following texts from the Old Testament:
- Psalm 95:7-8: “For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,” (emphasis added).
- Deuteronomy 32:39: “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand,” (emphasis added).
- Isaiah 43:13: “Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” (emphasis added)
It is in the context of having applied these Scriptures to himself that Jesus makes the declaration, “I and the Father are one.” He also claims to be the one who grants eternal life, a prerogative of God than one can scarcely envision Moses, Elijah or Isaiah laying claim to. The Jews clearly understood Jesus’ meaning, since they declare in verse 33, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” This would be an ideal opportunity for Jesus, were He not God, to deny the allegation. But what does He say? The answer is given in verses 34-39:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
It is not uncommon for unitarians to use this text in an attempt to show that Jesus is here in fact denying His deity by showing that, in Psalm 82 (to which he alludes in verses 34-35), rulers are given the title of “god”. In order to understand what Jesus is saying, we need to read the whole Psalm to acquire some context:
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement: 2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? 3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” 5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!
It is certainly true that the title of “God”, as here, can be used in some contexts to refer to earthly rulers. But the point of this Psalm is that the corrupt and evil rulers, whom the one true God has called “gods” are to be destroyed by the one true God as a result of their wickedness (verse 6). Does this sound like Jesus was placing Himself among them, as being like them, as being one of them, a “god” in the same sense that these wicked beings are called “gods”? Of course not. Rather, Jesus’ point is that, since even wicked and corrupt rulers whom God judges and destroys are called “gods”, on what grounds do the Jewish leaders object to him calling himself the Son of God when He does everything the Father does?
Furthermore, notice in verse 35 of John 10 that Jesus says that these “gods” are those to whom the Word of God came. In verse 36, he tells us that he, the Son, was sent into the world by the Father. John, the author of the gospel, has already told us in John 1 that Jesus is the Word, who has come to save those who will believe. Jesus is saying that he is the Word of God who has been sent into the world to judge the world’s wicked rulers and authorities. Thus, Jesus is saying that they are like the “gods” of Psalm 82 who are judged by the Word of God, namely Jesus Himself. This gains further support from by John 5:22 and 9:39-41, in which we are told that it is the Son who judges everyone. In John 9:39, Jesus says, “For judgement I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” In John 5:22, he says, “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son.” Thus, John 10:30, when properly interpreted through the lens of its surrounding context, is a powerful affirmation to the deity of Christ.
Was Jesus insane?
What is the significance of all this? There is an extremely small reference class of individuals who can be sincerely mistaken about being the God of Israel and creator of the Universe (i.e., someone who is completely insane), and Jesus does not appear to fit this reference class. G.K. Chesterton puts it like this [84]:
It is possible to find here and there human beings who make this supremely superhuman claim. It is possible to find them in lunatic asylums; in padded cells; possibly in strait waistcoats. But what is much more important than their mere materialistic fate in our very materialistic society, under very crude and clumsy laws about lunacy, the type we know as tinged with this, or tending towards it, is a diseased and disproportionate type; narrow yet swollen and morbid to monstrosity. […] It can be found, not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics. But this is exactly where the argument becomes intensely interesting, because the argument proves too much. For nobody supposes that Jesus of Nazareth was that sort of person. No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the parable of the prodigal son was a monster with one mad idea like a Cyclops with one eye. Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all.
Jesus shows every sign of being fully collected. He confounds his opponents in public discourse, and is extremely sharp-witted. Moreover, Jesus does not appear to have narcissistic tendencies. We previously reviewed evidence that Jesus washed the disciples feet at the last supper (reported in John 13), the very lowliest of tasks that was ordinarily reserved for a household slave. We also observed that Jesus had a tendency to deflect compliments. In view of these considerations, it is difficult to envision him being sincerely mistaken about the sort of claim he was making. Since it is not plausible that Jesus was lying, nor that he was sincerely mistaken, it points to the content of his claims being true.
Conclusion
As we have seen, there is a vast array of evidences, both internal and external, that reveal that the fourth gospel is composed by an individual who is extremely well informed, close up to the facts, and habitually scrupulous. Moreover, it can be established with a high degree of confidence that the identity of the author is, in fact, John the son of Zebedee. This lays the foundation for multiple lines of argument for the truth of Christianity — in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, other credibly attested miracles in the gospel of John, and the Christological Trilemma. If you think the arguments adduced in this essay are compelling, bear in mind that this is not even an exhaustive treatment of John, nor of the arguments for Christianity. I refer interested readers to my series of essays on the evidential value of Luke-Acts, which can be found in three parts addressing the case for Jesus’ resurrection, conversion of Paul, and other miracles recorded in Acts.
Notes
1. Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 3 (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 120-121.
2. J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London; New York: MacMillan and Co., 1893), 158–159.
3. C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation, Augmented with the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other Associates, ed. Alexander Thomson (Medford, MA: Gebbie & Co., 1889).
4. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 423.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 653.
8. Ibid., 324.
9. Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 7b (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 77.
10. Lydia McGrew, Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels (DeWard Publishing Company, 57.
11. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 539.
12. Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 5 (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 210.
13. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 478.
14. Polybius, Histories (Medford, MA: Macmillan, 1889), 486.
15. J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London; New York: MacMillan and Co., 1893), 161.
16. Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 93.
17. Ibid., 94.
18. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 175.
19. Steve Hays, “Projecting Contradictions, Triablogue, January 11, 2018, http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/01/projecting-contradictions.html
20. McGrew, Lydia, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (DeWard Publishing Company), 494-495.
21. Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard Publishing Company), 42.
22. Ibid., 71-72.
23. Ibid., 72.
24. Philo, Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp, vol. 9, The Loeb Classical Library (London; England; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1929–1962), 347–349.
25. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 679.
26. Lydia McGrew, The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage (DeWard Publishing Company), 520.
27. Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), 242.
28. Lydia McGrew, The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage (DeWard Publishing Company), 521.
29. Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 159–160.
30. William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
31. Stanley Leathes, The Witness of St. John to Christ (London, Oxford and Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1870).
32. J.S. Howson, Horae Petrinae, or Studies in the Life of St. Peter (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1883).
33. William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
34. Ibid.
35. Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, eds., The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: J. Murray, 1908), xiii.
36. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 67-92.
37. Luuk van de Weghe, Living Footnotes in the Gospel of Luke: Luke’s Reliance on Eyewitness Sources (Pickwick Publications, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers), 43-82.
38. Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 64-78.
39. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 367.
40. Ibid., 478.
41. Ibid., 598.
42. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.
43. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.
44. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.
45. Ibid.
46. Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, eds., The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: J. Murray, 1908), v–vi.
47. Ibid., vi.
48. ibid., vi.
49. Ibid., xi.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., xii.
52. Ibid., xviii
53. Ibid., xviii
54. Ibid., xix.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid., xix–xx.
57. Ibid., xx
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid., xx–xxi.
61. Ibid., xxi.
62. Lydia McGrew, The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage (DeWard Publishing Company), 203.
63. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 412-416.
64. Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done with Jesus?: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006), 141-156.
65. Lydia McGrew, The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage (DeWard Publishing Company), 614-684.
66. Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne, 2014), kindle.
67. Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperOne, 2006), 38.
68. Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.
69. Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 154.
70. Ibid.
71. Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 185.
72. Ibid., 186.
73. Ibid., 251.
74. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary & 2, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 1219–1220.
75. Ibid.
76. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 664–666.
77. Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard Publishing Company), 55.
78. Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (HarperOne, 2024), 233–234.
79. John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are The Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Wipf and Stock; Reprint Edition, 2005).
80. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 593.
81. Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 88–89.
82. C.S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (HarperCollins Publishers), 61-63.
83. William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
84. G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2022).