BELIEFS AND TEACHINGS
As a literary genre, gospel is a report of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (cf. Mark 1:1). The New Testament has four such accounts, traditionally understood as four specific perspectives of the same story. Different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke (called by scholars the Synoptic Gospels, because of their greater similarity to each other), John’s exalted presentation of Jesus has made it a continuing source of inspiration for the believer. Its author clearly stated that he wrote it so that his readers may come to believe that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Son of God, and through that understanding, have eternal life (John 20:30, 31). At the same time, John has also been the most controversial of the Gospels. No other Gospel has been so misused and distorted throughout Christian history. Let us look at some of its regular gospel characteristics as well as its unique aspects.
The Fourth Gospel claims as its author "the disciple whom Jesus loved"—someone portrayed as an eyewitness of the events he records (John 21:20-24; cf. 13:23-25; 19:26, 27, 35; 20:2-8). Christian tradition has overwhelmingly identified this disciple as the apostle John, the brother of James and son of Zebedee (Mark 3:17; 10:35), also claiming that Johncomposed the Gospel in Ephesus at the turn of the first century, after his release from Patmos (cf. Rev. 1:9), when he was already advanced in years. Internal evidences such as the Beloved Disciple’s intimacy with Jesus (John 13:23-25; 19:25-27; 21:20, 21; cf. Matt 17:1; 26:37; Mark 5:37; 13:3; Luke 22:8), proximity to Peter (John 13:24; 20:2-8; 21:20, 21), and the fact that he seems to have outlived Peter by many years (John 21:18,19, 20-23), all appear to support such a position. Another evidence is the striking similarity between John’s (and Peter’s) statement in Acts 4:19, 20 (“things which we have seen”) and what is found in1 John 1:1 (“which … we have seen”) and 3 (“that which we have seen”). See also John 1:14 (“we have beheld His glory”). The date traditionally assigned to the writing of John’s Gospel is about AD 90.
John complements the other Gospels, as it (1) is more explicit about Jesus’ pre-existence and divine origin (John 1:1-5, 14-18; 5:17-18; 6:29-33, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46-51, 57, 58; 7:27-29, 8:14, 23-27, 42, 43, 58, 59; 10:29-33; 12:44-46, 49, 50; 14:1-4; 17:1-5; etc.); (2) gives a more complete idea of the duration of Jesus’ ministry, which was about three and a half years (see such time markers as found in John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 11:55); (3) omits several incidents recorded in the Synoptics, such as Jesus’ birth, baptism, transfiguration, last supper, and agony in Gethsemane; and (4) adds episodes not found there, such as the miracle in Cana, Jesus’ encounters with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, the foot washing of the disciples, the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda and of the man born blind, and the resurrection of Lazarus.
John also has less biographical material than the Synoptics (roughly 40 percent less than Mark, 50 percent less than Matthew, and 60 percent less than Luke), but Jesus’ discourses and dialogues are usually much longer, which explains why its length is almost the same as Matthew’s and Luke’s. All of this suggests that John’s purpose was more theological than historical—not so much to retell the story of Jesus as to reveal His true identity as the Christ and the Son of God (cf. John 20:30, 31).
Besides the prologue (John 1:1-18) and the epilogue (21:1-25), John’s Gospel divides into two main parts: Jesus’ public ministry, which also starts with John the Baptist and finishes with the notice of His rejection by most of the Jewish people (1:18−12:50), and Jesus’ final moments with the disciples, including His death and resurrection (13:1−20:31). John 1:11, 12 well summarizes both parts: “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him [part one]. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God [part two].” John seems to speak to a decisive moment in the life of the church, when the divinity of Jesus, and not only His messiahship, had become an issue. The great point of controversy in the narrative— one that separates Jesus’ true disciples from the great mass of unbelievers— fits a later date in the first century rather than an early one. By cross-referencing various passages from the Gospel with evidence from both Jewish and early Christian literature, it is possible to suggest that the conflict was not an internal one, but was seemingly related to some Jewish allegations about Jesus. And it is precisely the distinctive elements of John’s Gospel that have brought it to the heart of the discussions concerning what has become known as the historical Jesus.
Of particular significance in this context are the miracles of Jesus, which attract more attention from the Jewish leaders than those reported in the Synoptics. The healings described in the Gospels, while supernatural in nature, cause no real problems for those who assume a naturalistic world view because they can regard them as the relief of diseases having psychosomatic causes. Different, however, are the miracles involving actions that seem contrary to natural law (water turning into wine, food multiplying, people walking on water, and being raised from the dead). While such miracles also appear in the other Gospels, John puts far more emphasis on them.
Because such miracles predominate in John and seem apologetically designed to prove Jesus’ divinity, some scholars have considered it to have less historical value than the other Gospels. This question also affects conclusions regarding authorship, date, and background (historical, cultural, and theological). Up until the mid-twentieth century, there existed a widespread consensus among critical scholars that the Fourth Gospel’s author was not a direct eyewitness of the events he records. They believed it was not written until late in the second century, that its background is not Jewish, and that it exemplifies the tendency to fabricate a Christ suitable to Christian beliefs (the so-called “Christ of faith”). Critical scholars went further, supposing John to be the final product of a lengthy editorial process of material written by several independent redactors at a time when the church had already moved away from its Jewish roots into the Hellenistic thought world.
Several archaeological discoveries, however, have called such a negative assessment into serious question. Not able in this re-evaluation process was P
As for the Gnostic hypothesis for John’s origin, another major discovery has raised significant questions about it. In 1945 at Nag Hammadi, a site near the Egyptian village of al-Qasr, the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered. It includes 49 treatises from no earlier than the mid-second century that combine Gnostic and early Christian elements. However, it furnishes no evidence at all of a pre-Christian Gnostic myth that could have influenced the theology and literature of the Gentile churches, or the Gospel of John in particular. These three findings (P
Another line of investigation relates to John’s geographical references. Despite containing much less narrative material than the Synoptics, the Gospel mentions a high number of locations: 20 altogether, 13 of which are unique to it. Until recently, when most interpreters still believed John was fictional, many treated such references as symbolic rather than historical recollections. Archaeological excavations, however, have positively identified 16 of the 20 sites: Bethsaida (John 1:44), Cana (John 2:1, 11; 4:46-54; 21:2), Capernaum (John 2:12; 4:46; 6:17, 24; the harbor, 6:24, 25; the synagogue, John 6:59), Jacob‘s well (John 4:4-6), Mount Gerizim (John 4:20), the location of Sychar (John 4:5), the Sheep Gate (John 5:2), the pool(s) of Bethesda (John 5:2), Tiberias (John 6:1, 23; 21:1), the pool of Siloam (John 9:1-9), Bethany near Jerusalem (John 11:1-18; 12:1-11), the village of Ephraim (John 11:54), the Kidron Valley (John 18:1), the Praetorium palace (John 18:28, 33; 19:9), Golgotha (John 19:17, 18, 20, 41), and the tomb of Jesus (John 19:41, 42). Of the remaining four, two can be narrowed down to within a relatively restricted area: the place in the temple precincts for the keeping of animals (John 2:13-16) and the LithostrÅtonor Stone Pavement (John 19:13). The other two are still in question: Aenon near Salim (John 3:23; 10:40) and Bethabara beyond the Jordan (John 1:28).
Archaeology, therefore, has confirmed the remarkable accuracy of the geographical information in John, despite the enormous amount of detail provided in some instances. In fact, it is precisely those places described with the most detail, as is the case with the pools of Bethesda, the place of crucifixion, and the location of Jesus’ tomb, that we can identify with the greatest certainty. Considering the degree of devastation that the Romans caused in Judea, and especially in Jerusalem in AD 70, as well as the almost complete interruption of Christian presence in those areas after the war, John’s topographical references undoubtedly derived from personal reminiscences that he preserved and transmitted.
Such discoveries have led to a complete reassessment of the problem of history in John and given rise to more objective discussions of several related issues. Though the archaeologist’s shovel will never be able to demonstrate the veracity of statements such as “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), “God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16), and “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), or the historicity of the miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11), the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1-15), and the resurrection of Lazarus (11:17-44), it has helped, more than anything else, to establish an early date for the Gospel. It has also set the Jewish background of the Gospel and placed its historical plausibility on a firm foundation.
The Gospel of John elaborates on much of what we find in the other Gospels. Many critical scholars indeed continue to remain suspicious of some of John’s content, but that is more the result of anti-supernatural biases than of conclusions drawn from sustained arguments. And this is where the discussion ends, for ultimately the response to any of the Gospels—and to Jesus—will always rest on a personal decision, not on the weight of the evidence. “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him” (12:37; cf. 9:39-41; 20:29).