Historical accuracy of the gospel of John

[patrick457]

Paul does not mention any women at the tomb. A poster says that was because women were not thought of as good witnesses. But why would the gospel writers think that they were good witnesses?

Look at the context of Paul’s letter. There is an apologetic thrust.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. …]

I think difference between Paul and the evangelists on the other hand is that the evangelists were transmitting the tradition itself. Paul on the other hand is using the tradition in a selective way (since he’s writing for Christians who would have already known many of these facts before) as a launchpad for a point that he’s trying to make. Paul wasn’t trying to write a complete biography of Jesus.

Seriously, if you’ll ask me, the version found in the gospels is less likely to be invented than the one in 1 Corinthians - if only for the reason that the gospels name female disciples as the first witnesses, who do not even appear and do anything important in the narrative until the crucifixion. Seriously, in Mark, Matthew and John you do not even hear about Mary Magdalene and the other Mary(s) until you get to the crucifixion. Mark and Matthew hint that she and the other women have followed Jesus since He was in the Galilee, but narrative-wise, she just appears out of thin air at this point. Why make this woman go to the empty tomb? Why not make it one of the male disciples who have already been mentioned earlier? Why not follow the lead of Paul and just talk about the appearances to the male disciples - make them the discoverers of the empty tomb even?

The only solution I could see here is that the idea of the empty tomb being found by women is an authentic early tradition - even if you do not believe that the stories found in the gospels are historical fact, at least this tradition would have some basis in reality, because it is represented and taken for granted in both streams of the gospel tradition (the synoptics on the one side, and John’s on the other). It’s so entrenched in the tradition that it is more likely Paul who deliberately omitted talking about them.

It’s what scholars call the “criterion of embarrassment.” Why would the evangelists invent something that could cause a potential source of embarrassment? There was a sort of sexist mentality in the ancient world: women were considered unreliable, gullible and superstitious even. It’s for this reason that their witness was not considered valid in a court of law. The anti-Christian Celsus even attacked the gospel accounts by invoking this card:

[A]fter death he rose again and showed the marks of his punishment and how his hands had been pierced. But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery …

It’s more likely to think that the gospels transmit a tradition that was fairly strong enough to not be omitted, even if it had a potentially problematic (for a 1st century context) content. If it was someone like Peter who found the empty tomb, then we might suspect the story might be invented.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think difference between Paul and the evangelists on the other hand is that the evangelists were transmitting the tradition itself.

Paul was writing several years earlier than the gospel writers.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s a very ignorant false dichotomy
It’s completely lacks an understanding of what discipleship actually meant and how meticulous the oral tradition were.

I don’t think it is ignorant to read what is written in the gospels and to see that there are discrepancies:
According to Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him.
According to John 19:13 -19:14 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside… Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and*it was about noon.
So was it nine in the morning (Mark) or was it after noon (John) that Jesus was crucified.
Also: In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden.
But in John’s Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noonbefore Passover.

 

[patrick457]

Paul was writing several years earlier than the gospel writers.

I think this is really the core of your whole argument - and to be honest, I think this is faulty logic. You seem to think that earlier equals ‘better’ / ‘more reliable’. Not necessarily so.

While earlier sources are generally preferred over later ones in terms of reliability, the world doesn’t work as neatly as we like it to be. Oftentimes, there are cases when a later source might preserve a more reliable or at least, more plausible information than an earlier one. Another factor to consider re. the epistles and the gospels is the differences of genre and intended audience. We all them ‘books’ now but they’re not really the same. One tells the Jesus story; the other is well, a letter addressed to someone or some group.

To go back to the OP topic, I’ll use John’s gospel as an example. While as you say, John’s is generally deemed to be the last of the four canonical gospels to be written, just as I mentioned last time, the ‘historical’ information embedded in it actually tends to be more historically-plausible than the version contained in the earlier synoptics. The presence of heady, complex theological stuff does not negate the historical core.

Not to mention that John’s geography, especially for the Jerusalem region, is apparently better than any of them: the Johannine Jesus’ movements are linear enough you could pretty much make a route on a map, whereas the synoptics are quite episodic that they sometimes tend to jump all over the place and engage in timeskips.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Besides, even if you think that were not written by the persons they were ascribed to (John’s more so), I don’t think Paul would be superior to them, because he’s still a secondary source; he is not an eyewitness himself either. He became a believer after the resurrection, after Jesus was no longer here. What he saw was the resurrected Jesus. Paul is not a primary source, nor does he claim to be.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t think it is ignorant to read what is written in the gospels and to see that there are discrepancies:

I don’t think anybody really denies that there are differences in the gospels. I think it’s obvious to anyone who reads them, otherwise why would people devote time trying to harmonize them. What is at issue is whether these affect the overall reliability of the gospels or their inspiration.

According to Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him.
According to John 19:13 -19:14 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside… Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and*it was about noon.
So was it nine in the morning (Mark) or was it after noon (John) that Jesus was crucified.

Two things.

The hour in John (sixth hour = midday) corresponds to the time when the Passover lambs began to be slaughtered. Which ties in to John’s idea about Jesus being the “lamb of God.” With this in mind one might be tempted to opt for Mark’s chronology to be the ‘historical’ one instead (hey, it’s the ‘earlier’ gospel ), but here’s another thing.

See, the time span in Mark’s passion story is apparently neatly organized into three hour segments.

Cockcrow (3 AM): Peter denies Jesus
“Early” in the morning (6 AM?): Jesus is brought before Pilate
Third hour (9 AM): Jesus is crucified
Sixth hour (12 PM): Darkness falls over the land
Ninth hour (3 PM): Jesus dies
“Evening” (6 PM?): Jesus is buried

In fact, in Mark 13, the reader seems to given a preview of the structure, because Jesus says:

“Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will return – whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the cock crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ―Watch!” (Mark 13.35-37).

In reality of course, the events wouldn’t have been probably as neatly organized as Mark presents it. Real life isn’t quite as neat and tidy as this. It’s probable that the chronology is artificial. Two scholars - Michael Goulder and Étienne Trocmé - suggested that Mark’s timeline was influenced by early Christian liturgy: when the early Christians commemorated Jesus’ death at Passover (what would become Easter), they might have held a vigil / liturgy in which they retold and relived the events surrounding Jesus’ death at set intervals. Think of something like the Byzantine Christian custom of the Royal Hours for Good Friday. (We Christians still use the liturgical three-hour division - which was something taken from Jewish custom.)

But the gospels still agree in one, basic thing: Jesus died quickly, late on the very same day He was crucified. Which is pretty fast for a crucifixion victim. Crucifixion was meant to keep the victim alive and suffering for as long as possible.

 

[Tomdstone]

As far as remembering past events, remember that the older one gets, the more clear earlier memories are, which is why the elderly often reminisce about their childhood or youth. The earlier memories become clearer than the more recent ones.
John was in his twenties or younger when he walked with Jesus. Those astonishing events would have imprinted themselves irreversibly on his mind.
I remember events from 65 years ago, when I was six. Easier for John, who was older.

Exactly the opposite was argued in another thread:

As time progresses evidence degrades, eye witness accounts falter, memories become fuzzy, and a whole host of other things happen that can prevent the truth from being presented accurately. Short of video evidence, there’s really no way to “prove” something from twenty+ years ago, let alone the fifty+ years ago the prosecutor was hoping to bring to court with this change.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I don’t think it is ignorant to read what is written in the gospels and to see that there are discrepancies:
According to Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him.
According to John 19:13 -19:14 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside… Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and*it was about noon.
So was it nine in the morning (Mark) or was it after noon (John) that Jesus was crucified.
Also: In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden.
But in John’s Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noonbefore Passover.

John was using Roman time.

 

[Barricade]

I often see people in debates like this trying to downplay the historicity of the Bible, claiming that the Bible is not a history book but a book about God’s truth, well I should point out that the teaching of the Church is clear on this point and it is that Biblical inerrancy is not limited to faith and morals.

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. …”

Providentissimus Deus - Pope Leo XIII - 1893

Of course different books in the Bible need to be interpreted in different ways depending on the type of writing, Genesis is interpreted differently from Isaiah and Revelation is interpreted differently from Paul’s letters. However, in the case of history, if there is any section of the Bible that is to be interpreted as literal history it is the Gospels, If not, how much of what is described in them is up for discussion? Are we supposed to reinterpret the miracles that were truly said to have happened? Are we supposed to reinterpret the physical resurrection itself? This interpretation of the Gospels is totally alien to tradition.

 

[Tomdstone]

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or** to admit that the sacred writer has erred.**”

Does that mean that there are no errors at all in the Bible? Isn’t it true that in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden.
But in John’s Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noon before Passover ?

 

[guanophore]

Does that mean that there are no errors at all in the Bible? Isn’t it true that in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden.
But in John’s Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noon before Passover ?

Both things may be true. Jesus and His disciples may have celebrated the Passover on the Essene calendar, a day earlier, so that Jesus could be sacrificed as the Lamb on the next day.

One has to wonder why this is so disturbing to you. You see to want the texts to be consistent with your perceptions of what is historically accurate, when they were written to describe God’s relationship with man.

 

[Tomdstone]

One has to wonder why this is so disturbing to you.

I suspect that there exist some people who say that the Bible may have error. Otherwise why say: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
For example according to : (John 19:30)
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The other gospels do not give this as being the last words of Jesus.
And there are things like:
John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.”
John 8:14 “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true.”

 

[PNEUMA]

I suspect that there exist some people who say that the Bible may have error. Otherwise why say: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
For example according to : (John 19:30)
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The other gospels do not give this as being the last words of Jesus.
And there are things like:
John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.”
John 8:14 “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true.”

In order to understand this, you must know that, both the Father and the Son speak in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I suspect that there exist some people who say that the Bible may have error. Otherwise why say: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
For example according to : (John 19:30)
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The other gospels do not give this as being the last words of Jesus.
And there are things like:
John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.”
John 8:14 “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true.”

I think perhaps you might have an easier time if you studied some hermeneutics. This stuff is much easier to parse when applying some principles.

For example, John’s account that leaves out parts of the passion does not make it “untrue” or “error”. There were events that occurred in between those John recorded.

Another factor is context. No historical document can be understood correctly if it is not taken in context. We cannot project a modern context back into the text.

“True” (ἀληθής) in John 5:31 is also translated “valid”. This is a reference to testimony in court or before the judgment seat. Jesus is making the point that the Father testifies for him, and it is this character witness that creates validity. He is not just speaking for HImself, but the Father has spoken to validate him. One could do as Jesus says in John 8:14 and tesitfy for oneself, and it would be true, but to qualify as “valid” at trial, there had to be other witnesses.

Perhaps you have some black and white thinking that makes this sort of thing difficult?

Have you ever considered that, if there appears to be a discrepancy, it might be that you are the one that is not understanding it correctly?

 

[patrick457]

And there are things like:
John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.”
John 8:14 “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true.”

You need to take the passages in context. This is John 5.

“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, this form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.”

And this is John 8.

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.” So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

In other words, John’s Jesus says that His witness is valid because both He and the Father - two witnesses, as per the legal requirement - testify to Himself.

 

[patrick457]

Both things may be true. Jesus and His disciples may have celebrated the Passover on the Essene calendar, a day earlier, so that Jesus could be sacrificed as the Lamb on the next day.

Re. the Essene calendar.

This theory was first popularized by a scholar named Annie Jaubert in the 1950s, I believe. Jaubert tried to solve the discrepancy between the synoptic and the Johannine chronologies by appealing to the fact that the Qumran community followed a different calendar than that used by the temple priests and most other Jews, based on two works, 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (both of which were well-read in Qumran, judging by the number of copies found there - what’s interesting is that Jaubert came up with this theory before any Qumran text that mentioned this calendar had been identified).

To recap, the ‘official’ Jewish calendar was lunisolar (the months are lunar - strictly following the phases of the moon - but the years have to be aligned with the seasons of the year, which are governed by the sun). The Qumran community however, had a 364-day purely solar calendar.

Jaubert theorized that the discrepancy between the chronology was because the synoptics were following the solar Qumran/Jubilees calendar while John followed the lunisolar temple calendar. That’s why, in her idea, Jesus would have celebrated the Passover one day early than the Jewish leaders: He and His disciples were using the Qumran calendar. She assumes that Nisan 14 in the Qumran calendar fell just before, and in the same week as, Nisan 14 in the official calendar. (Qumran Nisan 14 always fell on a Tuesday, so Jaubert assumed that Jesus held the Last Supper and was arrested on Tuesday night-Wednesday midnight before being crucified around three days later, on a Friday, which happened to be Nisan 14 according to the official calendar.)

While her idea is attractive because it’s simple, the problem with it is that it assumes too much. The two calendars would rarely have worked out in such a way that the synoptic date for the supper would have been on the same day in the Qumran calendar as John’s in the lunisolar one. There’s also no evidence that Jesus or any other early Christian used the solar calendar of Qumran or any other calendar that made them noticeably different from other Jews.

Besides, we have no solid undisputable evidence explicitly tying Jesus to the Essenes or the Qumran community at all besides the theories of early modern academics and fiction writers (who in rationalist fashion, usually used the then-mysterious Essenes as a convenient explanation to explain everything that happened in Jesus’ life, sometimes to ridiculous extents).

In addition, her theory that Jesus’ passion lasted for three whole days (Tuesday/Wednesday to Friday) doesn’t have much support within the gospels themselves, which imply that the action occurred within a short lapse of time. (Jaubert handwaved this by saying that it was the gospels who altered and compressed the chronology.)

Jaubert recognized the lack of support for her timeline among the gospels, so she instead looked to other sources in support of her idea. She invoked a 3rd century Christian document, the Didascalia Apostolorum, which asserts that Jesus had “eaten the passover on the third day of the week at even” and was arrested “on the fourth day of the week” - Tuesday/Wednesday - and was crucified on a Friday, thereby giving an explanation to the early Christian custom of fasting during those two days (already attested in the Didache). Some other early Christian writers also repeated this claim (Sts. Victorinus of Pettau and Epiphanius of Salamis are two).

But here’s the problem: did the historical memory of Jesus’ arrest really give rise to the Wednesday fast (as Jaubert claims)? Or did the fast actually come first, and only later did some Christians invent a reason for it, one which admittedly contradicted a plain reading of the gospels? (Jesus was crucified on a Friday (before the Sabbath), which could explain the Friday fast, but the Wednesday fast didn’t have anything to explicitly connect it with any event from Jesus’ life, unlike the Friday fast.)

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Does that mean that there are no errors at all in the Bible? Isn’t it true that in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden.
But in John’s Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noon before Passover ?

When John speaks of the Passover meal, he means the hagigah offering made on Nisan 15.

 

[PNEUMA]

You need to take the passages in context. This is John 5.

“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, this form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.”

And this is John 8.

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.” So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

In other words, John’s Jesus says that His witness is valid because both He and the Father - two witnesses, as per the legal requirement - testify to Himself.

The problem is that they think its only one witness in front of them (Jesus) They don’t hear and see the Father (that is within Jesus)

 

[PNEUMA]

I don’t think it is ignorant to read what is written in the gospels and to see that there are discrepancies:
According to Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him.
According to John 19:13 -19:14 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside… Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and*it was about noon.
So was it nine in the morning (Mark) or was it after noon (John) that Jesus was crucified.
Also: In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden.
But in John’s Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noonbefore Passover.

John does not say “noon” he says six o’clock. Jesus stands before Pilate at six o’clock in the morning. And gets crucified at nine in the morning. On the day of preparation for the Passover festival.

There may be discrepancies elsewhere, but not here.

 

[Tomdstone]

John does not say “noon” he says six o’clock. Jesus stands before Pilate at six o’clock in the morning. And gets crucified at nine in the morning. On the day of preparation for the Passover festival.

There may be discrepancies elsewhere, but not here.

Which version of the Bible are you using? The Catholic NAB says noon for John 19:14.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

John does not say “noon” he says six o’clock. Jesus stands before Pilate at six o’clock in the morning. And gets crucified at nine in the morning. On the day of preparation for the Passover festival.

There may be discrepancies elsewhere, but not here.

Exactky my words.