The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel – Part 10: Key Historical Claims

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series, I argued that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The main problem is that the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of John conflicts with the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of Mark.

In Part 5, I argued that the following three alleged discourses by Jesus in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable:

• The Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:35–58)
• The Good Shepherd Discourse (John 10:1–18)
• The True Vine Discourse (John 15:1-17)

In Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9, I argued that the following five one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individual in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable:

• Dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-21)
• Dialogue between Jesus and a Samaritan Woman (John 4:1-42)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:28-19:16)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Thomas (John 20:24-29)

Since the historical problems described in Part 1 through Part 4 are sufficient to make it probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and since there are significant historical problems in the Gospel of John with three alleged discourses of Jesus  and with five alleged one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and an individual, problems that make it probable that those alleged words of Jesus are either fictional or historically unreliable, we have good reasons to conclude that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and thus passages from this gospel cannot be used as a part of a reasonable case for the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

KEY HISTORICAL CLAIMS BASED ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

There are at least five key historical claims used in cases for the resurrection of Jesus that are based on passages from the Gospel of John:

• Jesus hands and feet had large puncture wounds from his hands and feet being nailed to the cross (John 20:19-29).
• The Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus decided to not break his legs because they were confident Jesus had already died on the cross (John 19:31-37).
• Jesus had a large wound in his side from being stabbed with a spear while he was hanging on the cross (John 19:31-37 & 20:19-29).
• When Jesus was stabbed in the side with a spear, blood and water flowed out of the wound, indicating that Jesus was already dead (John 19:31-37).
• Jesus was wrapped in cloth containing about 100 pounds of spices and a gummy substance when he was buried in a stone tomb after his crucifixion (John 19:38-42).

These five historical claims are dubious because they are based on passages from the Gospel of John which is very probably a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus.  If we judge these five claims to be dubious or probably false, that does serious damage to cases for the resurrection of Jesus.

However, there are more specific reasons for doubting the historicity or historical reliability of the relevant passages in the Gospel of John. Specifically, each of the key chapters about the trials, crucifixion, burial, and alleged resurrection contains specific historical problems with various alleged events and details that are described in those chapters. 

The most relevant passages are found in Chapter 18, Chapter 19, Chapter 20, and Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John. I will point out a number of historical problems with those specific chapters in Part 11 and Part 12 of this series.

PASSAGES IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT HURT THE CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

 

If, contrary to all the evidence that I have presented in the previous parts of this series of posts, the Gospel of John is assumed to be historically reliable, then this would not only help the case for the resurrection, in terms of the five historical claims mentioned above, but this would also significantly hurt the case for the resurrection, because of at least eight other historical claims that are supported by the Gospel of John:

• Jesus was not subjected to a Jewish trial, so he probably was NOT kept up all night prior to being crucified (John 18:12-30).
• Jesus was scourged or flogged BEFORE being condemned to death, so he probably received only a light beating, NOT a severe one (John 19:1-16).
• Jesus successfully carried his cross to the crucifixion site by himself, so he probably was NOT severely scourged or flogged before he was crucified (John 19:16-18).
• Jesus was able to talk to his mother and a disciple from the cross, so he probably did NOT die from asphyxiation (John 19:25-27).
• It is likely that only Jesus’ hands, and NOT his feet were nailed to the cross, because both Thomas and Jesus mention nail wounds in Jesus’ hands but neither mentions nail wounds in Jesus’ feet (John 20:19-29).
• Jesus was crucified in the afternoon, around 1pm, so he may have hung on the cross for only two or three hours, i.e. from 1pm to 3pm or to 4pm (John 19:13-18).
• Two men were involved in burying Jesus and both were admirers of Jesus, thus they would probably have tried to help Jesus to escape from the tomb and to recover from his injuries, if they detected any signs of life in Jesus during the burial process, i.e. bleeding, warmth, breathing, moaning, wincing, or any movement of his hands, feet, arms, legs, or head (John 19:38-42).
• The accounts in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew of what happened after the burial of Jesus would probably fictional, because they clearly conflict with the Gospel of John (John 20:1-29 vs Mark 16:1-8 & Matthew 27:62-28:20). This would destroy the credibility of those two other Gospels as evidence for Jesus’ alleged resurrection.

CONCLUSION

 

I have argued that it is very likely that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus.  Thus, some key historical claims based on passages from the Gospel of John that are used in arguments by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus are dubious claims.

 

However, if the Gospel of John, contrary to all of the evidence I have presented, were assumed to provide a historically reliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus, then this would not only help the case for the resurrection of Jesus, it would also significantly damage the case for the resurrection of Jesus, because there are several historical claims that are supported by the Gospel of John that undermine or contradict claims and assumptions made by Christian apologists in their cases for the resurrection of Jesus.