Is John’s Gospel Historical and Trustworthy?
Revised May 3, 2023
“Since the 19th century, scholars have almost unanimously accepted that the Johannine discourses are less likely to be historical than the synoptic parables and were likely written for theological purposes”—Wikipedia
There are obvious and striking differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). These include:
- John contains no narrative parables, no account of the transfiguration, no record of the Lord’s Supper, no mention of Jesus’ temptation and no report of Jesus casting out demons.
- John includes a vast amount of material not found in the synoptic tradition, such as the records of extended conversations with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and the disciples, as well as of significant miracles (e.g., the turning of water into wine and the resurrection of Lazarus).
- John recounts an extensive Judean ministry for Jesus, including several visits to Jerusalem, whereas the Synoptic Gospels focus on his Galilean ministry.
- Certain features of John’s presentation also raise seeming chronological difficulties for understanding Jesus’ action in the temple (John 2:13-22) and the precise sequence of events during the week of his death and resurrection.
- Perhaps most significant, notable stylistic differences emerge between Jesus in John, who discourses poetically on themes of light, life, witness and truth, and the synoptic Jesus, who argues forcefully and consistently on the theme of the kingdom of God.
The accumulation of these differences has generated speculation regarding the historical reliability of this document as a testimony concerning Jesus (John 20:31). There are, however, significant reasons for believing John to be historically accurate: