Comments on The Secular Outpost: Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus - Part ...

Let's review Smalley's view of the stages ...

2012-02-01T13:05:24.039-06:00

Let's review Smalley's view of the stages of development that he believes the Fourth gospel went through.

1. John the son of Zebedee gathered disciples and over a period of two or three or four decades told stories and preached sermons to them about things Jesus said and did. These stories and sermons evolved into oral traditions; that is, disciples of John would re-tell stories about what Jesus allegedly said and did.

At this stage we have potential distortions introduced by faulty human memory and by various personal and group biases. John was a devout Jew and follower of Jesus, who set aside his family fishing business (to some extent) to devote himself to following Jesus for a period of some years. So, John was not a neutral and objective observer. Nor was the audience of John's stories and sermons composed of neutral and objective listeners/re-tellers. And stories were re-told by non-eyewitnesses who had their own theological and ideological biases and agendas, their own errors of memory as well as the usual dramatic motivations to alter stories/sayings for the sake of impact and appeal to audiences (e.g. increase the entertainment value or the practical value or the motivational impact of the stories and sayings).

In phase 2 we have disicples of John gathering and selecting and modifying the oral traditions in the Johannine church community to put those traditions into written form. Bias and distortion and errors can and would enter at this second phase just as it did in the oral phase. Furthermore, if the original written version of the gospel was in Greek, then there was also a translation from Aramaic to Greek in this phase, requiring a degree of interpretation by the translator(s), and providing another opportunity for bias and error to creep into the gospel accounts.

Finally, in a third phase additional chapters and sections are added to the initial version of the gospel, and probably some additional editing took place to fit the various written and oral traditions into a tidy package. This was another opportunity for bias and error to enter into the Gospel accounts.

So, although Smalley does not challenge the view that John the apostle was the original source behind the Fourth gospel, his view (shared by C.K Barrett, Raymond Brown, and many leading NT scholars) puts significant distance between the words and actions of the historical Jesus and the final edition of the Fourth gospel which appeared about six decades after the crucifixion.

There is an article on the Fourth Gospel in The Ox...

2012-02-01T01:29:10.751-06:00

There is an article on the Fourth Gospel in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. That article was written by a moderate-to-conservative NT scholar, Stephen Smalley.

In the article, Smalley does not challenge the traditional view that the 'beloved disciple' was John the apostle.

However, Smalley has concluded that there is a history of various stages of development behind the Fourth Gospel that puts some significant distance between John and the final written product that we now call the Gospel of John.

Here is Smalley's 'suggested description of those stages' of development of the Fourth gospel:

“First, John the apostle, who was traditionally identified as the ‘beloved disciple,’transmitted orally to his followers an account of the deeds (especially the miracles, or ‘signs’) and sayings of Jesus and of his death and resurrection. As we have already seen, these reminiscences preserved historical information about the ministry of Jesus in both Judea and Galilee.

Second, the beloved disciple and his circle of followers moved to Ephesus (a city associated, by strong tradition, with John), where the nucleus of the Johannine church was established. While there, John’s disciples committed to writing the traditions preserved in their community for the purposes of worship and instruction. In the first draft of the final gospel what may now be recognized as distinctively Johannine thought emerged, as the ideas handed on by the apostle were dramatically treated and theologically developed by the fourth evangelist and his colleagues.

Third, after the death of John his church at Ephesus published a final edited version of the gospel. This included a summary introduction (1.1-18), based on a community hymn and now tied securely to the remainder of the chapter, some editing of the discourses, possibly the addition of the prayer of consecration in chap. 17, and an epilogue (chap. 21). The whole gospel thus assembled then carried an authenticating postscript (21.24-25).”

(Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.375)

Smalley's view is that disciples of John the apostle wrote down some of the oral traditions in their Christian community, oral traditions that mostly originated from John the apostle. Then in a third stage, some additional sections or chapters were added to the gospel.

In his book Familiar Stranger, not only does McCly...

2012-02-01T00:07:25.529-06:00

In his book Familiar Stranger, not only does McClymond choose to focus on the synoptic gospels as historical sources and largely ignore the Fourth gospel, but he asserts that doing so is a 'foundational principle' for the historical study of the life of Jesus:

"A number of foundational principles should be kept in mind regarding the synoptic Gospels and their portrayal of Jesus. First, the earliest Christians probably did not write out a full narrative of Jesus’ life, but preserved individual units of tradition (called pericopes or pericopae—literally ‘cut around’) about his life and deeds. These units were later moved and arranged by editors and authors. This means that we cannot be completely certain regarding the immediate context of Jesus’ sayings and actions. Second, much of the material included in the Gospels has been significantly shaped by the concerns of the early Christians who gathered together the traditions concerning Jesus. Third, the inscriptions of authorship for the Gospels may have been added after the works were written. Fourth, as we have mentioned already, the Gospel of John is quite different from the other three Gospels, and it is primarily in the latter that we must seek information about Jesus. Fifth, the Gospels lack many of the characteristics of biography, and we should especially distinguish them from modern biographies.” (Familiar Stranger, p.35)

If the Fourth gospel was viewed as being an historically reliable account of the life and ministry of Jesus, then it would be unreasonable to focus in on the synoptic Gospels as historical sources and largely ignore the Fourth gospel, so clearly McClymond is clearly suggesting that the Fourth gospel is historically unreliable, or at least that the reliability and accuracy of the Fourth gospel is doubtful based on the currently available evidence.

Craig Evans and Robert Gundry both recommend an in...

2012-01-31T17:54:13.788-06:00

Craig Evans and Robert Gundry both recommend an introductory textbook on the historical Jesus by a conservative scholar Michael McClymond; the book is called: Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth. (Eerdmans, 2004)

What does McClymond have to say about the Fourth gospel?

"Little has been said regarding the Gospel of John. ...Few scholars would put the Gospel of John on a par
with Matthew, Mark, and Luke as an historical source for the life of Jesus. John's Gospel omits many of
the key episodes and themes of Jesus' life as presented by the synoptic Gospels: extended teaching on
the kingdom of God, the parables, Jesus' baptism, the calling of the Twelve, the casting out of demons,
the transfiguration, and the institution of the Lord's Supper. The Christ of John speaks in a different way
than the Jesus of the synoptics--not in parables, not in pithy phrases that show the coloring of first-century
Palestine, and only rarely in talk about 'the kingdom of God.' Instead, the Christ of John engages in
extended soliloquies that revolve around himself and his unique identity. Only in John do we find the
remarkable assertions: 'I am the bread of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the true vine'
(15:1), and so on. ...John goes much further than the other canonical Gospels in bringing Jesus himself and
his identity into the foreground. ...because of the unique character of the Fourth Gospel and the many
unresolved debates concerning it, the picture of Jesus presented in subsequent chapters will be based
primarily on the synoptic Gospels." (Familiar Stranger, p.34)

In other words, McClymond, as with most NT and Jesus scholars, does NOT 'put the Gospel of John on
a par with Matthew, Mark, and Luke as an historical source for the life of Jesus.' Rather, his book about
Jesus, which was recommended by both Robert Gundry and Craig Evans, largely ignores the Fourth Gospel,
and relies primarily upon the synoptic gospels.

Craig Evans apparently also views the Fourth gospe...

2012-01-31T15:47:54.390-06:00

Craig Evans apparently also views the Fourth gospel as a somewhat unreliable source of the words of Jesus, as do most other Jesus scholars.

In February of 2011, Craig Evans participated in a 'dialogue' with Bart Ehrman about the question 'Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus?'. Bart Ehrman is a NT Textual scholar who started out a conservative Evangelical believer and ended up an agnostic. Ehrman takes a somewhat skeptical position on the question above.

Evans was expected to defend a conservative Evangelical view of the historical reliablity of the Gospels and set Ehrman straight, but it appears that Evans was in agreement with much of what Ehrman had to say, to the consternation of some.

Apparently, Evans basically conceded that, at least in the case of the Fourth gospel, we are not give an accurate account of the words of Jesus.

Read the disappointment of one conservative student of theology about the dialogue between Craig and Ehrman:

http://thecenterfortheologicalstudies.blogspot.com/2011/03/gospel-of-john-and-problem-of.html

Evans talks about Ehrman in his book Fabricating Jesus, and he theorizes that Ehrman has turned away from Christian faith and from belief in the inspiration of the Bible because Ehrman started out with the 'baggage' of a 'fundamentalist' view of biblical inspiration that requires that the Gospels be written by apostles, and that they are completely without error, and that we must be able to harmonize the contents of all four gospels (because none of them contain any historical errors).

Clearly, Evans no longer carries this baggage, esp. when it comes to the Fourth gospel.

For Evans what matters is that the Gospels all testify to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that we can get the main ideas/teachings of Jesus from a critical examination of the four gospels.

Evans, I believe, has a fairly reasonable view of the gospels, compared to, for example, most Evangelical Christian and Catholic apologists. But what Craig does not realize is that the case for the resurrection depends on the historical reliablility of the DETAILS of the gospel accounts, and especially of the details in the Fourth gospel.

Craig Evans is a conservative Jesus scholar, an Ev...

2012-01-30T23:03:43.895-06:00

Craig Evans is a conservative Jesus scholar, an Evangelical Christian scholar. In his book Fabricating Jesus, there are hints that Evans does not accept the traditional views of the authorship of the Gospels:

"At first, I must admit, I found aspects of biblical criticism unsettling. But in time I realized that what biblical criticism challenged was not the essence of the Christian message, but the baggage that many think is part of the message. Typically this baggage includes views of autorship and dates of given biblical books (for example, the idea that biblical books must be early and written by apostles even when they make no such claim), as well as assumptions regarding the nature of biblical literature (for example, the belief that the Gospels are history and nothing else)..." (p.13)

This suggests that Evans either rejects the traditional view that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew and that the apostle John wrote the Fourth gospel or else that he has significant doubts (based on study of biblical criticism) about this traditional view of the authorship of those Gospels.

I'm looking for clearer statements by Evans on the issue of the authorship of the Gospels (esp. Matthew and the Fourth gospel).

"Craig Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Pro...

2012-01-30T22:27:27.790-06:00

"Craig Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College of Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. A graduate of Claremont McKenna College, he received his M.Div. from Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Claremont Graduate University in southern California. He has also been awarded the D.Habil. by the Karoli Gaspard Reformed University in Budapest. A well-known evangelical scholar throughout the world, he is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.

After teaching one year at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Evans taught at Trinity Western University in British Columbia for twenty-one years, where he directed the graduate program in Biblical Studies and founded the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute. He was also a Visiting Fellow at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey.

Author and editor of more than sixty books and hundreds of articles and reviews, Professor Evans has given lectures at Cambridge, Oxford, Durham, Yale and other universities, colleges, seminaries and museums, such as the Field Museum in Chicago, the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa and the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. He also regularly lectures and gives talks at popular conferences and retreats on the Jesus, Archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible.

Along with countless interviews on radio networks across Canada and the US, Evans has been seen on Dateline NBC, CBC, CTV, Day of Discovery, and many documentaries aired on BBC, The Discovery Channel, History Channel, History Television and others. He also has served as a consultant for the National Geographic Society."

http://greerheard.com/aboutevans.html

Witherington gives more reasons for rejecting the ...

2012-01-29T19:10:59.273-06:00

Witherington gives more reasons for rejecting the traditional view that the Fourth gospel was written by John the apostle:

"This person [the Beloved Disciple] had direct access to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, so that he could follow Jesus in after his arrest, as John tells us in 18:15. Would a Galilean fisherman have had such access, or is it more probable that a Judean follower of Jesus--one who lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem--would? Surely in terms of historical probabilities the latter is more likely. Consider as well the fact that the synoptics are quite clear that while the Twelve had deserted Jesus and were not present at his crucifixion, the Beloved Disciple is clearly there near the cross. If those accounts are right, then the Beloved Disciple cannot be one of the Twelve....On the basis of cumulative evidence, I conclude that it is likely that the Beloved Disciple was a Judean eyewitness and disciple of the ministry of Jesus, who could testify to what Jesus said and did, particularly when he was in the vicinity of Jerusalem; and the most likely candidate to be this disciple is the one whom John 11:2 says Jesus especially loved--Lazarus."

(What Have They Done with Jesus? p. 147)

Ben Witherington on the Fourth gospel: "It s...

2012-01-29T18:58:37.462-06:00

Ben Witherington on the Fourth gospel:

"It seems unlikely that the Beloved Disciple is the same person as John son of Zebedee. I come to this conclusion because the Fourth Gospel has all sorts of unique traditions about what Jesus did in Jerusalem and its environs; and yet it has none of the special Zebedee Galilee traditions we find in the synoptic gospels, as noted earlier, nor does it have the synoptics' Galilean miracle tales (with the exception of the tandem feeding of the five thousand/walking on water)."

(What Have They Done with Jesus? p.145)

More from Ben Witherington on authorship of the Fo...

2012-01-29T18:53:45.973-06:00

More from Ben Witherington on authorship of the Fourth gospel:

"There are a variety of good reasons to think that this author is not John son of Zebedee, not the least of which is that the Fourth Gospel leaves out all the special Zebedee stories we find in the synoptics involving events that John was a special eyewitness of (for example, the raising of Jairus's daughter, the transfiguration, and the request for special seats in the kingdom). Yet there is a strong stress in the Fourth Gospel on the author being an eyewitness of other events in the life of Jesus. the most reasonable conclusions are the following: (1) John of Patmos wrote Revelation but not the gospel or epsistles of John; (2) the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles were not written by John son of Zebedee either; (3) rather, those documents were penned by the Beloved Disciple, who is someone else--a Judean disciple of Jesus, as we shall see."
(What Have They Done with Jesus? p.142)

More from the Evangelical NT scholar Ben Withering...

2012-01-29T18:46:14.039-06:00

More from the Evangelical NT scholar Ben Witherington on the authorship of the Fourth gospel:

"Second, though this will come as a surprise to some, both the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles are formally anonymous--that is, no author is named within their texts. the superscripts to these documents (by which I mean wording such as 'The Gospel According to John,' or 'The Second Letter of John') were added after the fact, probably in the second century, based on ideas that some early Christians had about who may have written these documents. We must bear in mind, however, that these are later guesses, sometimes based on oral tradition, sometimes not. Nothing in the documents themselves indicates that John son of Zebedee is the author. In fact, the Fourth Gospel suggests that it may have been penned by the Beloved Disciple, who is not mentioned until John 11 or perhaps John 13."
(what Have They Done with Jesus? p.141-142)

Ben Witherington III is one of the top Evangelical...

2012-01-29T18:33:50.794-06:00

Ben Witherington III is one of the top Evangelical NT scholars, and he argues that John the apostle was NOT the author of the Fourth gospel:

"I have argued that the evidence of this gospel taken as a whole certainly does not point to the Beloved Disciple being a Galilean disciple, much less John of Zebedee, but rather a Judean disciple, most likely Lazarus.

We have examined a series of important texts in this gospel and considered detailed questions regarding the authorship of various Johannine documents. All this evidence points in one particular direction: the Beloved Disciple was an important follower of Jesus, not to be equated with either John of Patmos or John son of Zebedee." (What Have They Done with Jesus?, p.155)

Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor o...

2012-01-29T18:24:55.905-06:00

Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.

Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. A popular lecturer, Witherington has presented seminars for churches, colleges and biblical meetings not only in the United States but also in England, Estonia, Russia, Europe, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. He has also led tours to Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.

Witherington has written over forty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Patheos website.

Along with many interviews on radio networks across the country, Witherington has been seen on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and the PAX Network.

http://benwitherington.com/

C.K. Barrett summarizes his view of the historical...

2012-01-28T20:20:57.166-06:00

C.K. Barrett summarizes his view of the historical unreliability of the Fourth gospel:

“It is evident that it was not John’s intention to write a work of scientific history. Such works were extremely scarce in antiquity, and we have seen that John’s interests were theological rather than chronological. Moreover, his treatment of the only source (Mark) we can isolate with any confidence from his gospel is very free; and there is no reason to think that he followed other sources more closely. He did not hesitate to repress, revise, rewrite, or rearrange. On the other hand there is no sufficient evidence for the view that John freely created narrative material for allegorical purposes. His narratives are for the most part simple, and the details generally remain unallegorized. This means that the chronicler can sometimes (though less frequently than is often thought) pick out from John simple and sound historical material; […] It was of supreme importance to him [the author of the Fourth gospel] that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who lived and died in Palestine, even though to give an accurate outline of the outstanding events in the career of this person was no part of his purpose. He sought to draw out, using in part the form and style of narrative…, the true meaning of the life and death of one whom he believed to be the Son of God, a being from beyond history. It is for this interpretation of the focal point of all history, not for accurate historical data, that we must look in John.” (The Gospel According to ST. John, 2nd ed., p.141-142)

Here is C.K. Barrett’s hypothesis about how the Fo...

2012-01-28T16:15:10.234-06:00

Here is C.K. Barrett’s hypothesis about how the Fourth gospel was composed:

“John the Apostle migrated from Palestine and lived in Ephesus, where, true to character as a Son of Thunder, he composed apocalyptic works. These, together with his advancing years, the death of other apostles, and predictions such as Mark 9.1, not unnaturally gave rise to the common belief that he would survive until the parousia [the second coming of Christ]. A man of commanding influence, he gathered about him a number of pupils. In course of time he died; his death fanned the apocalyptic hopes of some, scandalized others, and induced a few to ponder deeply over the meaning of Christian eschatology. One pupil of the apostle incorporated his written works into the canonical Apocalypse…c. A.D. 96. Another pupil was responsible for the epistle (probably 1 John came from one writer, 2 and 3 John from another). Yet another, a bolder thinker, one more widely read in both Judaism and Hellenism, produced John 1-20. … Probably he was not popular; probably he died with his gospel still unpublished. It was too original and daring a work for official backing. … Only gradually did the main body of the church come to perceive that…his work was the strongest possible reply to the Gnostic challenge. …The gospel was now edited together with ch. 21; the narratives of the final chapter were probably based on traditional material; perhaps material which the evangelist had left behind but had not worked into the main body of his work. The evangelist, perhaps after Paul, the greatest theologian in all the history of the church, was now forgotten. His name was unknown. But he had put in his gospel references to the beloved disciple –the highly honoured apostle who years before had died in Ephesus. These were now partly understood, and partly misunderstood. It was perceived that they referred to John the son of Zebedee, but wrongly thought that they meant that this apostle was the author of the gospel. 21.24 was now composed on the model of 19.35, and the book was sent out on its long career as the work of John…” (The Gospel According to ST. John, 2nd ed., p.133-134)

According to the moderate-to-conservative NT schol...

2012-01-28T11:38:22.309-06:00

According to the moderate-to-conservative NT scholar C.K. Barrett, it is a ‘moral certainty’ that the Fourth gospel was NOT written by John the son of Zebedee:

“It must be allowed to be not impossible that John the apostle wrote the gospel; this is why I use the term ‘moral certainty’. The apostle may have lived to a very great age; he may have seen fit to draw on other sources in addition to his own memory; he may have learnt to write Greek correctly; he may have learnt not only the language but the thought-forms of his new environment ( in Ephesus, Antioch, or Alexandria); he may have pondered the words of Jesus so long that they took shape in a new idiom; he may have become such an obscure figure that for some time orthodox Christians took little or no notice of his work. These are all possible, but the balance of probability is against their having all actually happened.” ( The Gospel According to ST. John, 2nd ed., footnote on p.132)

Another comment by the conservative Jesus scholar ...

2012-01-27T16:45:22.201-06:00

Another comment by the conservative Jesus scholar Richard Burridge about the authorship of the gospels:

“Yet human beings are naturally curious animals, and this lack of hard information has never stopped interpreters, both ancient and modern, from speculating who wrote these books [the Gospels], where, when and to whom. On the one hand, this led to the various traditions in the early church about the apostolic authorship of the gospels and their possible churches, while most biblical commentaries over the last century or two include opening sections discussing authorship, date, provenance, readers, occasion and so forth. ...Yet despite two thousand years of tradition, research and speculation, it is important to stress at the outset that in fact we know practically nothing of who the original authors and audiences of these texts actually were.”
(The Written Gospel, edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner, p.100)

Evangelical NT scholar I. Howard Marshall thinks t...

2012-01-27T16:27:52.423-06:00

Evangelical NT scholar I. Howard Marshall thinks that it is improbable that John the apostle wrote the Fourth gospel:

“Alleged historical and geographical errors in the Gospel have been urged against it authorship by an eye-witness of the ministry of Jesus, but these cannot carry the burden of proof assigned to them. More weight attaches to the fact that the Gospel shows some evidence of use of earlier sources and that its thought, with its subtle blend of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas, seems to require a more learned and profound author than a Galilean fisherman. The Revelation is also ascribed to John the apostle, and it is difficult to believe that one mind produced both works, so different in language and character. These facts lead most scholars to conclude that John could not have been the author of this Gospel. However, the weight of the evidence for some connection between John and the Gospel is so strong that many scholars feel unable to deny that John had something to do with the Gospel. The tradition suggests that John dictated the Gospel, and this may well conceal the fact that John’s memoirs of Jesus were an important source for the Gospel, and that his influence lay behind the various Johannine works in the New Testament. On the whole, therefore, it is improbable (although not impossible) that John himself wrote the Gospel, but very probable that his influence lay behind it.” (I Believe in the Historical Jesus, revised edition, p.150-151)

What does D. Moody Smith have to say about the his...

2012-01-26T22:53:52.407-06:00

What does D. Moody Smith have to say about the historical reliability of the Fourth gospel?

Although Smith argues for the independence of this gospel from the Synoptics, and for the rehabilitation of the Fourth gospel as a legitimate historical source of information about Jesus, he does not view this gospel as being historically reliable in general:

“In his book of the same title, Maurice Casey asks, is John’s Gospel true? and answers that is not. Given Casey’s standard of what is truth (cf. John 18:38), his answer is in many important aspects correct, or so I would agree. The picture of Jesus as the Christ that emerges from John is significantly farther removed from the historical Jesus than that portrayal of any or all of the Synoptic Gospels. It is true, as Casey maintains, that John is influenced both by the synagogue conflict, which so largely shaped the Gospel in its formative stages, and by its post-resurrection, Christian perspective…. John’s Jesus is different from the synoptic Jesus, and both differ from the historical figure of Jesus. Yet John’s Jesus is a more distinctly Christian figure who stands over against ‘the Jews.’
Casey’s argument that the Gospel of John is untrue entails his maintaining that in all cases where it differs from or contradicts the Synoptics John is historically wrong. Doubtless he believes that is the case, but his arguments suffer from his palpable programmatic intention. If, in respect to major and central aspects of John’s portrayal of Jesus, Casey’s position is, by historical-critical standards, largely correct, this does not mean that the Fourth Gospel may not contain historically accurate data, particularly when its differences do not express its clear theological or narrative interests.” (John Among the Gospels, 2nd ed., p.234-235)

Smith concludes that Casey’s view that the Fourth gospel is historically unreliable is CORRECT for the most part, but that Casey has over-generalized and failed to notice that in SOME specific examples where there is a disagreement between the Fourth gospel and the Synoptic gospels, a plausible case can be made that the Fourth gospel is more likely to be correct than the Synoptic gospel(s). Thus, it appears to be possible to mine kernels of historical truth about Jesus from the Fourth gospel, if one does so with caution.

What about the ‘beloved disciple’? Does D. Moody ...

2012-01-26T21:53:50.499-06:00

What about the ‘beloved disciple’? Does D. Moody Smith conclude that the beloved disciple was John the apostle?

“…the Beloved Disciple is never in the Gospel identified as John, despite the later church tradition, although in 21:24 he is said to be responsible for it. The silence about all the incidents in which, according to the Synoptics, John was present (e.g., the raising of Jairus’s daughter and the transfiguration) is only with difficulty explained by the modesty of a man who could refer to himself as the Beloved Disciple. The identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel remains a mystery, perhaps deliberately concealed…” (“John”, HarperCollins Bible Commentary, revised ed., p.957)

According to Smith, we don’t know who the ‘beloved disciple’ is, or who the author of the Fourth gospel is, and there is good reason to doubt the traditional view that the ‘beloved disciple’ was John the apostle.

Until fairly recently, Jesus scholars largely igno...

2012-01-26T21:42:20.791-06:00

Until fairly recently, Jesus scholars largely ignored the Fourth gospel, and did not consider it to be a worthwhile source of historical information about Jesus.

One 20th Century scholar who has been a leading proponent of the view that the Fourth gospel should be treated as a legitimate historical source is D. Moody Smith.

Smith argues that the Fourth gospel makes use of early sources concerning Jesus, and that this gospel was not merely a creative revision of the Synoptic gospels, as many scholars believed it to be.

What does D. Moody Smith have to say about the authorship and composition of the Fourth Gospel?

"The several references to Jews being put out of the synagogue (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) and the prominence of the Pharisees help us define more accurately the setting of the period from which John’s Gospel originates […] …the fear of expulsion from the synagogue, the claims of Jesus for himself, and the sharp distinction of Jesus and his followers from the Jews bespeak of a time and situation for John different from Jesus’ own ministry and closer to the end of the first century. At least part of John’s purpose was to persuade followers of Jesus to leave the synagogue and join distinctively Christian communities. In all likelihood the Gospel was composed in stages or went through successive editions as the controversy developed.” (“John”, HarperCollins Bible Commentary, revised ed., p.957).

Smith implies that the words and ideas of Jesus have been altered to fit with new circumstances that occurred five or six decades after Jesus was crucified, and that the Fourth Gospel went through various stages of development or revisions.

Keith Rozumalski said... You write: According to ...

2012-01-26T17:49:42.029-06:00

Keith Rozumalski said...

You write: According to the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, the Fourth Gospel is very unreliable, and there are very few details in this Gospel that are historically true or even probable.

What you fail to mention is why the Jesus Seminar scholars, and many liberal scholars in general, consider sections of the Gospels to be not true or historical. The reason is that they are bound by the presuppositions of naturalism and therefore view all physically impossible sections as unhistorical and not true.
=============
Response:

The examples of Evangelical NT scholars in my post, and the examples of conservative Jesus scholars in my recent comments, show that skepticism about the traditional view of the authorship of the Fourth gospel as well as about the reliability of the Fourth gospel is not limited to the scholars of the Jesus Seminar nor to "liberal scholars in general".

Evangelical and conservative scholars may be more inclined to use the Fourth gospel as a source of historical info about Jesus than liberal scholars, but many Evangelical and conservative scholars use it with caution, and as a secondary source to corroborate what is already implied by the Synoptic gospels.

Conservative Jesus scholar Bruce Chilton is inclin...

2012-01-26T12:11:54.493-06:00

Conservative Jesus scholar Bruce Chilton is inclined towards Raymond Brown's view of the composition of the Fourth Gospel, and believes that although it is sometimes appropriate to use this gospel as an historical source about Jesus, one must do so with caution:

"John's Gospel, for example, is routinely dismissed as a source, on the grounds of its obviously homiletic purpose, comparatively late date, and greater distance from the culture of Galilee and Judea. ... But the complex development of that Gospel over time has been amply demonstrated by Raymond Brown in his commentary. Its earliest sources, he argues convincingly, are comparable to the Synoptic tradition in value, although independent.... Given the way in which much early Christian and Judaic literature developed within communities in phases, rather than by the work of single authors who took responsibility for everything they wrote, it is unrealistic to simply write such texts off completely as fiction. It is clear that when materials in John and other sources can be shown to be early on literary grounds, and to accord with and complement what we may deduce from the Synoptic Gospels, it should be used with caution." (Rabbi Jesus, p. 301)

Richard Burridge is a conservative Jesus scholar. ...

2012-01-26T00:47:10.098-06:00

Richard Burridge is a conservative Jesus scholar. Burridge expresses a degree of skepticism about the identification of the 'beloved disciple' as John the apostle, as well as the closeness of the text of the Fourth gospel to the original words of the beloved disciple:

"The identity of this mysterious 'Beloved Disciple' is greatly debated. The final verses of the gospel appear to be confirmation by church leaders that he has been the authority, if not the author, behind the story (21:24-25). This clue has traditionally identified him with John, son of Zebedee.... If the gospel went through several versions over a long period of time, the apostle John may have been the original story-teller, whose preaching brought this church into being, but from the text, we simply cannot know."
(Four Gospels, One Jesus? p.157-158)

Graham Stanton is another conservative Jesus schol...

2012-01-26T00:27:46.693-06:00

Graham Stanton is another conservative Jesus scholar. Here are some of his comments about the authorship of the Fourth gospel:

"Today it is generally agreed that neither Matthew nor John was written by an apostle. And Mark and Luke may not have been associates of the apostles." (The Gospels and Jesus, p.135)

"In the second half of the gospel we meet the 'beloved disciple'.... Although numerous attempts have been made to equate the beloved disciple with John the son of Zebedee, on the basis of chapters 1-20 this is only a possible inference. In 21:7 (a later appendix) the beloved disciple is identified as one of the group of disciples mentioned in 21:2: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples who are not named. Once again the beloved disciple may be linked with John the son of Zebedee, but this is not a necessary conclusion. It is in fact unlikely. If the beloved disciple belonged to the circle of the disciples of Jesus from the beginning, why does the first reference to the beloved disciple come only at 13:23?" (p.124)

Not only is it unlikely that the 'beloved disciple' is John the apostle, but it is unclear whether the 'beloved disciple' is the author of the gospel:

"At first sight this verse [21:24] suggests that the beloved disciple wrote the gospel. But dopes 'these things' refere to the whole gospel, to the whole of chapter 21, or just to the immediately preceding incident? And even if 21:24 does refer to the whole gospel, it may well be no more than an attempt from the time when the appendix was added to identify the beloved disciple as the author of the gospel. So we are left with a number of problems." (p.124)