Most Christian scholars and virtually all non-Christian scholars say the reason John’s Jesus “sounds” so different from the Synoptics, is because John has infused his own theological perspective into Jesus’ sayings, thus giving the reader of representation of Jesus that differs from what “really” happened. In short, Jesus did not utter some of the words that John’s gospel represents as Christ-sayings.
Fundamentalist Christian scholars would rather kill themselves than admit a gospel author presented history in any less-than-completely truthful manner.
Enter Dr. Lydia McGrew, author of “Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage” (DeWard, 2021). She is not an inerrantist but she pulls nearly every trick in the book to “refute” Licona, Keener, Craig and other Christian scholars who argue that John reports facts in a way different from “what really happened”.
Bart Ehrman claims that if the Synoptic authors knew Jesus had ever claimed to be God as explicitly as John reports, they are very unlikely to have intentionally excluded such remarks, so because the Synoptic Jesus never explicitly claims to be god, this is not a case of the authors “excluding” anything, but a case of the authors having no knowledge that Jesus ever talked that way in the first place, strongly suggesting that he never actually did, thus forcing the conclusion that the only reason he talks that big in John’s gospel is because John is using embellishment and attributing to Jesus words that Jesus never actually spoke.
Dr. McGrew responds with remarks about arguments from silence, implicitly high-Christology in the Synoptics, Licona being ambivalent on whether Jesus was likely or unlikely to have been as explicit about his deity as John reports, etc.
The first 6 pages of the book provide accolades from other conservative Christian scholars.
Anybody here have anything to say about Dr. McGrew’s attempt to defend John’s gospel as historically reliable?
I have my own criticisms of this work, but I must agree with her against Licona. I think Licona’s perspective on John’s relation to real history is the truth about that gospel, but Licona’s view conflicts with his other belief in biblical inerrancy. I think Lydia is correct that if John really did engage in “displacement” and (as Licona thinks) told stories in ways different from what “really” happened, then Licona’s refusal to accuse John of error is merely Licona’s refusal to go where his own logic leads. If you report a fact in a way different than what “really” happened, it would qualify as error even if you and your intended audience knew the representation was other than what “really” happened. We all know what the literal astronomical truth is when we say “the sun is setting”, but that doesn’t protect the statement from a charge of error.
Hmm, historically reliability of anything 2000 years ago is quite the impossible thing to prove. The daily news can’t even necessarily always prove what is what. The more details it includes, the more probable it is to be “historically incorrect.” There’s not always a distinction between what’s historically correct and what’s politically correct. I’m not much convinced the Jews had any concern about historical accuracy in the modern sense. Whatever is more politically advantageous against the Samaritans is good enough.
I’ve long thought that the gospels of Mark and John were to be one gospel. Mark doesn’t originally have a birth of Jesus story nor the finer details of the resurrection. John does however have the finer details of the resurrection, but not a birth story about Jesus nor John the Baptist. Mark begins with John the Baptist and so does John. I consider John 1:1-5 to be the origins and inspiration of the virgin birth stories of Matthew and Luke.
There was something extremely significant about John the Baptist which wasn’t fully answered or devised yet in Mark or John. That is that Jesus and John the Baptist are blood relatives through their mothers. Matthew and Luke bring those details in later. A two text gospel, Mark/John and Matthew/Luke, with the purpose of becoming a single gospel in the futures but time did not allow.
Bart Claims:
If the Synoptic authors knew Jesus had ever claimed to be God as explicitly as John reports, they are very unlikely to have intentionally excluded such remarks, so because the Synoptic Jesus never explicitly claims to be god, this is not a case of the authors “excluding” anything, but a case of the authors having no knowledge that Jesus ever talked that way in the first place, strongly suggesting that he never actually did, thus forcing the conclusion that the only reason he talks that big in John’s gospel is because John is using embellishment and attributing to Jesus words that Jesus never actually spoke.
Steefen:
If the Synoptic authors knew Jesus had ever raised Lazarus from the dead as John reports, they are very unlikely to have intentionally excluded the event, so because the Synoptic Jesus never raised Lazarus from the dead, this is not a case of the authors excluding anything, but a case of the authors having no knowledge that Jesus did this in the first place, strongly suggesting that he never actually did this, thus forcing the conclusion that the only reason he did this big event in John’s gospel is because John is using embellishment and attributing to Jesus something he never did to Lazarus.
Quite frankly the modern rules
(of nonsense legal conjecture logic looking for an Q text that doesn’t even exist as a piece of dust)
are devised and thought of by the post WW2 Jewish authority realms of academia for something to do at the universities instead of getting a real job in the real world.
Does the Nicene Creed say the Bible is historically reliable? No. Why all the fuss then?
John 3:16 there is a messiah and you have to decide who it is, specifically by name. Believe in God, not the Son duh. That’s what it meant 2000 years ago. The Jews had many people claiming to be messiahs ever since the Maccabean Revolts and Jewish Roman Wars. Pick someone or give up on the idea already. Isaiah 2 clearly says this “messiah” who turns the swords into plowshares is the LORD. The messiah is the LORD. It’s not a Jewish warlord.
In the context that the gospel of John is trying to persuade you to choose that Jesus is the messiah. Yes, it is historically descriptive of the time then. And you’re being theologically trapped into agreeing that the messiah is God because of Isaiah 2.
The Romans just came out of nowhere on destroyed Jerusalem. Nobody saw it coming. It wasn’t the Jews fault. That’s sounds like something they would say today for political correctness and cultural sensitivity reasons. Give me a break. The entire OT is based on the belief that the Israelites are the master race on earth. But nobody dares call it racist in today’s climate.
That’s what’s going on 2000 years ago during Jesus. The Jews are preparing for war to free themselves from the Roman Empire. Whichever leader of a militia wins is the messiah. They all lost.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)