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 at least three alleged discourses by Jesus in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable.
In Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9, I argued that at least five one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individual in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable.
Since there are these additional 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 individuals), that make it probable that many of the alleged words of Jesus in the Gospel of John 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.
I. Jesus was Arrested (John 18:1-14)II. Peter’s Denials of Jesus (John 18:15-18 & 18:25-27)III. Annus Questions Jesus (John 18:19-24)IV. Jesus before Pilate (John 18:28-40)
I. Jesus was Arrested (John 18:1-14)
The Gospel of John, Chapter 18, verses 1 through 6 (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition):1 After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place because Jesus often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” 5 They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus replied, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these people go.” 9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, “I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me.” 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” 12 So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.
Accounts of Judas are varied, inconsistent, and influenced by theological opinions of the writers, the belief in the fulfillment of scripture, and the idea that God brings death to ungodly persons (2 Macc. 9.5-12). It is therefore difficult to assess the historicity of Judas and his action. [1]
...virtually every detail with the passion was based on some scripture. ...The stories of the arrest in the gospels are themselves fictions...
In addition to events and details suggested by scripture, the passion story contains a number of pure fictions. Judas Iscariot the betrayer is in all probability a gospel fiction.[2]
18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ 19 I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur you may believe that I am he. ...
21 After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking. 23 One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining close to his heart; 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25 So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot.
(John 13:18-19 & 21-26, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
Suppose the author of the Gospel of John believed that Jesus made this prophecy/prediction. In that case, the author might well have concluded that Judas must have betrayed Jesus, without having any factual evidence that Judas actually betrayed Jesus. On the other hand, suppose the author did NOT believe that Jesus made this prophecy/prediction. In that case, the author would be lying by attributing these words to Jesus, and the credibility of the author and of the Gospel of John would thus be seriously damaged.
The other Gospels also have Judas betray Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus predicts that one of his twelve disciples will betray him, but does not indicate the specific disciple that would do this (Mark 14:17-21). Although the author of Mark does not quote Psalm 41:9, the passion narrative in the Gospel of Mark was heavily influenced by Old Testament passages, especially by passages from the Psalms that early Christians viewed as containing prophecies about the final days and hours of Jesus' life.
Thus, the betrayal of Jesus by Judas in the Gospel of Mark could also have been based on Psalm 41:9 and/or on an alleged prophecy by Jesus, rather than on the basis of reliable testimony or historical evidence. Since Mark was a primary source used by the authors of the other two Gospels, the betrayal of Jesus by Judas in the Gospel of Mark would have been the basis for this event in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
- In the Gospel of Mark (and the Gospel of Matthew), Judas singles out Jesus by giving him a kiss, but in the Gospel of John, Judas merely leads a group of armed men to the place where Jesus and his other disciples are, and Jesus steps forward and clearly identifies himself, making it unnecessary for Judas to identify Jesus.[3]
- In the Gospel of Mark (and the Gospel of Matthew), Judas is accompanied by "a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders," but in the Gospel of John, Judas comes with "a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees". It is unlikely that the chief priests would have wanted or needed Roman soldiers (as indicated by the Gospel of John) to achieve the arrest of Jesus, especially since they had him arrested at night, when there would be little chance of a skirmish with a crowd of Jesus' followers.[3]
- In the Gospel of Mark (and in the Gospel of Matthew), nothing miraculous or amazing happens when Jesus is arrested, but in the Gospel of Luke, and only in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus performs a miracle. When a follower of Jesus cuts off the ear of a man to prevent Jesus from being arrested, Jesus instantly heals the injured man's ear.[4] In the Gospel of John, and only in the Gospel of John, when Jesus announces his identity to the detachment of Roman soldiers and Jewish police, they all fall to the ground! There is no hint of such amazing events in the account of Jesus' arrest in either the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew, indicating that these are legendary embellishments to earlier accounts.[3]
- The words allegedly spoken by Jesus during his arrest are different in each of the four Gospels, indicating that each author probably invented what Jesus said during his arrest.[3][4]
- In the Gospel of Mark (and in the Gospel of Matthew), Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane, which was probably an olive grove, but in the Gospel of John, Jesus was arrested in a garden.[5]
- In the Gospel of Mark (and in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke), Jesus is taken to the house of the high priest, i.e., Caiaphas, and questioned by Caiaphas.[6] But in the Gospel of John, Jesus is taken to be questioned by Annas, who was not the high priest at that time.[7]
There are at least three reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the story about Peter’s alleged three denials of Jesus.
First, it is unlikely that Peter, who allegedly fled in fear along with the other disciples when Jesus was arrested[8], would be so daring as to follow armed soldiers and an armed crowd that took Jesus to the house of the high priest.
Second, this story follows “the rule of three,”[9] a common feature of jokes, storytelling, and fairy tales, indicating that this is an imaginative bit of dramatic storytelling.
Third, the author of the Gospel of John stated that Jesus predicted Peter would deny him three times before a rooster crows:
36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward.” 37 Peter said to him, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times." (John 13:37-38, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
Either the author believed Jesus made this prediction or the author did not believe Jesus made this prediction. If the author believed Jesus made this prediction, then the author would probably tell this story even if there was no reliable testimony or historical evidence supporting the story, simply on the basis that this is what Jesus predicted would happen. If, on the other hand, the author did not believe Jesus made this prediction about Peter, then the author of the Gospel of John lied about Jesus making the prediction, seriously damaging the credibility of his other claims about the words and actions of Jesus.
Thus, we have good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of these verses about the alleged three denials of Jesus by Peter in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John.
III. Annas Questions Jesus (John 18:19-24)
19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus answered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. (John 18:19-24, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
First, according to the Gospel of John, two of Jesus' disciples were present, but they were outside, while Jesus was being questioned inside[10], so we have here another example of omniscient narration by the author of the Gospel of John. It is doubtful that the two disciples could hear the conversation between Annas and Jesus from the courtyard outside, so it is unlikely that these details of what was said in that alleged conversation were based on eyewitness testimony or reliable historical evidence.
Second, the questioning of Jesus by Annas clearly violates a basic principle of Jewish law. A person charged with a crime can only be convicted on the basis of the testimony of two or more witnesses to the alleged crime. The Jewish leadership, according to the Gospel of John, thinks Jesus should be put to death. So, this is, in essence, a capital case, which clearly demands a formal trial involving testimony from two or more witnesses. In this passage, Jesus is correctly pointing out that Annas is failing to follow some basic principles of Jewish law.
It might be objected that this is only an informal interrogation and that a more formal trial of Jesus was going to happen later, but the Gospel of John says nothing about there being a trial of Jesus after Jesus' arrest.
Annas was a former high priest and the father-in-law of the current high priest, so he was very familiar with Jewish legal principles and was a very influential Jewish leader. There is no reason to believe that Annas was an evil or morally corrupt leader, and the Gospel of John repeatedly shows a strong anti-Jewish bias, blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus. So, we have good reason to doubt this characterization of Annas as someone who would ignore basic principles of Jewish law and justice, especially in a case where the punishment of the alleged crime would be death. Thus, it is unlikely that this alleged conversation between Jesus and Annas is historically accurate.
Third, the striking of Jesus in the face by a Jewish police official during questioning by Annas seems unlikely, unless we had good reason to believe that Annas was an evil or morally corrupt leader, in view of the anti-Jewish bias of the Gospel of John, and in view of the fact that the Old Testament was believed by early Christians to have predicted that Jesus would be physically abused and struck. The Gospel of Mark also has Jesus struck when Jesus was interrogated by the high priest (Caiaphas), and this event appears to have been inspired by a passage from Isaiah:
For what happened to Jesus at this point, Mark's source had gone to Isaiah 50:6 in the Septuagint: "I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows [hrapismata]; and I turned not away my face from the shame of spitting [emptusmaton]," and follows it closely: "Some began to spit [emptuein] on him, blindfolded him, and struck him [hrapismasin]" (Mark 14:65).[11]
If the striking of Jesus after being questioned by the high priest was based on an Old Testament passage that early Christians believed was a prophecy about Jesus, then the striking of Jesus after being questioned by Annas might well also have been based on the same Old Testament passage rather than being based on eyewitness testimony or reliable historical evidence.
These considerations provide good reason to doubt the historical reliability of this section of Chapter 18 about the alleged interrogation of Jesus by Annas.
IV. Jesus Before Pilate (John 18:28-40)
In Part 6 of this series, I argued that the Dialogue
between Jesus and Pilate is probably either fictional or historically
unreliable. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 of my
book, I provide ten reasons for believing that the Gospel accounts of the
alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate are either fictional or historically
unreliable (see section 6.3 Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries).
9. “The
Rule of Three” from Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment