The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 1: General Considerations

SAYINGS OF JESUS VS. STORIES ABOUT JESUS

The Gospel of Luke has something significant to offer scholars who study the historical Jesus, at least in terms of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus. The main reason for this is that whenever a saying, parable, or teaching of Jesus is found in both the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke but NOT in the Gospel of Mark, that saying, parable, or teaching probably came from an early source of the words and teachings of Jesus known as Q.[1] Without the Gospel of Luke, it would be very difficult to determine the content of this early source of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus.

However, the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke might not provide historically reliable information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. For example, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, then most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke are also historically unreliable, because most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke came from the Gospel of Mark.[2] 

On the other hand, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable, then most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke would also be historically reliable, because most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke came from the Gospel of Mark.

CHANGES & ADDITIONS TO STORIES FROM THE GOSPEL OF MARK

However, the author of the Gospel of Luke did make some changes to the stories about Jesus that came from the Gospel of Mark, and did add some stories or events to what is found in the Gospel of Mark. The changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark could either be historically reliable or not. If those changes and additions are historically unreliable, then in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke would have very little historical information to offer about Jesus beyond what we already find in the Gospel of Mark.

REASONS FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

In this post (and future posts in this series), I am going to argue that the changes and additions to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark made by the author of the Gospel of Luke are dubious and historically unreliable. There are at least five reasons that support this conclusion:

REASON #1: There are several general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that suggest that its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. I will present such general considerations later in this post. 

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about the birth, infancy, or childhood of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories of eight such events, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those stories in the Gospel of Luke. 

REASON #3: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories about three different events involving alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of these additional stories in the Gospel of Luke.

 REASON #4: In Chapters 3 through 21, the Gospel of Luke adds twenty-four events that are not found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those accounts of additional events.

REASON #5: The various additions and changes that the author of the Gospel of Luke makes to the Passion Narrative (about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus) in the Gospel of Mark are consistently dubious and are thus historically unreliable.

The above five reasons are sufficient to show it is very probable that changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, and thus in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke has very little historical information about Jesus to offer us beyond what we find in the Gospel of Mark.

REASON #1: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS INDICATING THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

The Gospel of Luke is an ancient work of history/biography.  Such works are usually unreliable for these reasons[3]:

• Author Bias and Agenda: Ancient historians, like modern ones, brought their own perspectives and goals to their writing. Some works served as political propaganda to glorify rulers (e.g., Velleius Paterculus in the Roman Empire) or defend a particular group.
• Time gap: Many accounts were written long after the events occurred, meaning they were based on memory or secondary sources rather than direct experience.
• Distance in Time and Geography: Accounts written long after or far from the events they describe are often less accurate than eyewitness records.
• Lack of Modern Historical Standards: Ancient writers did not use modern historical methodologies, such as fact-checking or seeking external verification, as standard practice. Their goal was often to write compelling literature, not just present a neutral record of facts.
• Copying and translation: Ancient texts were copied by hand, and errors, omissions, or deliberate changes could be introduced over time.
• Incorporation of Mythology or Folklore: Some ancient historical works blend factual events with mythological or metaphysical explanations, which historians cannot verify with their tools. 

There are at least eight general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that give us good reason to expect its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark to be historically unreliable:

1. The Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda: it was written by a Christian believer to promote Christian beliefs about Jesus and God. 

 
2. The Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, or the burial of Jesus. 

 

3. The Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. 

 
4. There are significant cultural gaps between the author of the Gospel of Luke on the one hand, and Jesus and his disciples on the other hand. 

 

5. There are no details given in the Gospel of Luke about the specific sources that were used by the author as the basis for any of its stories about Jesus. 

 
6. Most of the specific historical events in the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark. 

 

7. The written sources used by the author of the Gospel of Luke were probably copies of copies, and our earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Luke is from at least a century after it was composed, so it is likely a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. 

 

8. Ancient historical and biographical works, like the Gospel of Luke, often include historically dubious mythology and legends. 

Based on these general considerations, we may reasonably conclude that it is probable that the Gospel of Luke is historically unreliable when it makes changes or additions to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark.

1. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA

The Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda: it was written by a Christian believer to promote Christian beliefs about Jesus and God:

The unusual nature of the gospels…arises in part from the fact of their being written by people who were not neutral about the person they were describing and whose life they were purportedly reporting. The gospel writers were all “supporters” of Jesus; they were all Christians. Indeed, we have very little literature anywhere near contemporary with Jesus from someone who was either neutral or hostile towards Jesus. (“Jesus and the Gospels” by Christopher Tuckett in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII, p.72-73.)

Recognition of the essentially religious character of these works [the Gospels] raises questions for how they are best approached within an academic setting. On the one hand, such a setting demands that these books be studied like any other, with rigorous objectivity that does not exempt them from critical scrutiny. On the other hand, to ignore the religious dimension would represent a failure to engage them on their own terms. … An objective dispassionate reception is the last thing the Gospel writers would have wanted their books to receive. We are free to accept or reject, belittle or embrace, but whatever our response, we ought to understand what these books intend to do: they intend to convert us. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.9.) 

The authors of our canonical gospels were Evangelists. That means they were primarily focused on proclaiming Jesus. For them, he was the Son of God, the Good Shepherd, and, especially, the long-awaited Messiah. … They knew it was necessary to focus solely on Jesus and to proclaim Jesus’ relation to God and his place within God’s final plan of salvation. (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.xv.)

The Gospels are not primarily works of history in the modern sense of the word. They aim first of all at proclaiming and strengthening faith in Jesus as Son of God, Lord, and Messiah. Their presentation from start to finish is formed by their faith that the crucified Jesus was raised from the dead and will come in glory to judge the world. (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, p.41.)

Because the Gospels in general, and the Gospel of Luke in particular, are instances of Christian propaganda, it is reasonable to anticipate that the authors of the Gospels are more interested in promoting Christian beliefs about Jesus and God than in providing accurate and reliable historical information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

2. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY AN EYEWITNESS

The Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus:

[The author of the Gospel of Luke was] An educated Greek-speaker and skilled writer who knew the Jewish scriptures in Greek and who was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown, p.226.)

Luke does not number himself among the eyewitnesses, however, but among those who came later and learned the tradition "handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (1:2-3).  (“The Gospel of Luke” by R. Alan Culpepper in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.7.) 

...we may discern from the Gospel's preface (1:1-4) that the evangelist [the author of the Gospel of Luke] was not an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus but relied on accounts of others. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.97.) 

For more than two hundred years most New Testament experts have concluded that the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels] did not know the historical Jesus; moreover, they wrote decades after his death.

The Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels] were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and thought. … (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.xiii-xiv.)

…the gospels as we have them were not written by eyewitnesses on the basis of first-hand knowledge of Jesus. (The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders, p.63.)

Because the author of the Gospel of Luke was not an eyewitness to the alleged events described in that Gospel, all of the information in the Gospel of Luke is hearsay. The Gospel of Luke is at best a secondhand account of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

3. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS WRITTEN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX DECADES AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION

The Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus (80-90 C.E.):

DATE [when the Gospel of Luke was composed]: 85 give or take five to ten years. (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown, p.226.)

Both Matthew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90) by combining and editing Mark, a collection of Jesus' sayings that scholars arbitrarily label Q, and special traditions peculiar to Matthew and Luke. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I by John P. Meier, p.43-44.)

As already noted, both Gospels [Matthew and Luke] are usually dated in the period of 80-95... (Christianity in the Making, Volume I by James D.G. Dunn, footnote #98 on page 160.) 

Since the Gospel according to Mark is usually dated about the year 70, a date for Luke in the mid-eighties appears likely. ... A date for the composition of the Gospel [of Luke] in the mid-eighties is based, therefore, on Luke's use of Mark, the absence of references to Paul's letters in Acts, and the Lukan form of Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. (“The Gospel of Luke” by R. Alan Culpepper, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.8-9.)

Most scholars guess that both Luke and Acts were composed in the decade between 80 and 90, around the same time as Matthew's Gospel but, apparently, in a different sector. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.97.)

The composition of Luke-Acts is usually dated around 80-90, though some experts now suggest perhaps between 90 and 110. (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.42.)

In any case, it is widely held that the Lucan gospel was composed ca. 80-85 CE, even though one cannot maintain this dating with certainty.  ("Luke, The Gospel According To" by Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.472.)

Luke probably wrote his gospel around 80-85 CE, not far from the time Matthew produced his work. ("Luke" by Eric Franklin in The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.925.)

Mark is probably one Lukan source, so that the date [of the composition of the Gospel of Luke] is post-70, indicated also by 19:43 and 21:20. ...The irenic view of the Roman government and the author's failure to cite Paul's epistles, which had been collected by the early second century, indicate a first-century date, probably in the 80s. ("Luke" by David L. Balch in The Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, p.1104.)

Because the Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, nearly all of the eyewitnesses to the arrest, trials, crucifixion, burial, and alleged appearances of the risen Jesus would have been dead or senile by the time this Gospel was composed.[4] Thus, there probably were no competent eyewitnesses available to review or correct the stories in this Gospel when it was being written and when the first copies of it began to circulate.

4. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL GAPS BETWEEN LUKE AND JESUS

The Gospel of Luke was written in Greek, but Jesus and his disciples probably spoke primarily Aramaic, and it is very probable that Jesus public teachings were delivered in Aramaic.[5]  So, there is a significant language gap between the author of the Gospel of Luke and Jesus. This is on top of the previously mentioned significant time gap between the author of the Gospel of Luke and Jesus. 

Furthermore, Jesus and his disciples were probably not educated enough to write in any language[6], but the author of the Gospel of Luke was not only a skilled writer in Greek, but he was also familiar with Greco-Roman literature and philosophy.[7] Also, Luke is probably the only gentile author of a book (actually 2 books) in the New Testament.[8] Finally, because Luke's knowledge of Palestine is imprecise, he probably lived and wrote somewhere outside of Palestine.[9]

There are thus a number of significant cultural gaps between the author of the Gospel of Luke and Jesus. These various cultural gaps between Luke and Jesus make it less likely that the Gospel of Luke accurately captured the life and teachings of Jesus. 

5. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE DOES NOT PROVIDE DETAILS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SOURCES IT USED

Modern historical and biographical books usually provide evidence in support of their claims and stories. This is often done with footnotes or endnotes that specify particular documents, books, or interviews that were used as sources of information about the person or event under discussion. 

The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, has no footnotes and no endnotes, and it does not provide names or details about the specific sources used by the author as the basis of the stories it contains about the life, ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus. This is an indication of a lack of concern and effort by the author of the Gospel of Luke about objectivity, historical accuracy, and historical reliability.

The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us that most of his stories about events in the life of Jesus were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark.  But it is clear, for example, that the Passion story (about Jesus' arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial) in the Gospel of Luke is almost entirely taken from the Passion story in the Gospel of Mark.

However, there is no birth story about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, nor are there any stories about appearances of the risen Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.  So, where did the author of the Gospel of Luke get this information or these stories?  The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us who gave him information or stories about the birth of Jesus or what books or documents he consulted on this matter.  The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us who gave him information or stories about the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus or what books or documents the author consulted on this matter.  

Did some of the stories about Jesus' birth come directly from an alleged eyewitness to an alleged event?  If so, who was this person, and why should we believe that person's story? If the storyteller was not an alleged eyewitness, did the storyteller claim to have learned the information from an alleged eyewitness? The author of the Gospel of Luke fails to provide answers to these important questions. 

It is, for example, highly unlikely that the author of the Gospel of Luke spoke with an eyewitness to the birth or infancy of Jesus. This Gospel was probably composed in the 80s CE, and Jesus was allegedly born during the reign of King Herod the Great, which means Jesus was born no later than 4 BCE.[10] If Jesus' mother Mary was 16 years old when Jesus was born in 4 BCE, then she would have turned 100 years old in 81 CE. Mary would have been between 99 and 108 years old when the Gospel of Luke was being composed. It is very unlikely that Mary would have lived that long, and if she had, she would probably have been senile, and if she was still alive and her mind was still sharp at that age, her memories of events that took place nine decades in the past would be very unreliable.

Did some of the stories about appearances of the risen Jesus come from an eyewitness to these alleged events? If so, who was this person, and why should we believe that person? If the storyteller who told the author of the Gospel of Luke about these events was not an alleged eyewitness, did the storyteller claim to have learned the information from an alleged eyewitness? The author of the Gospel of Luke does not say.

Jesus was probably in his thirties when he was crucified, and his disciples might well have been younger than Jesus, probably in their twenties. If the disciples were 20 to 25 years old in the year 30 CE (about when Jesus was crucified), then they would have been 70 to 75 years old in the year 80 CE and 80 to 85 years old in the year 90 CE.  People living in Palestine two thousand years ago usually did not live to be that old.[4]  So, it is unlikely that Jesus' disciples were still alive when the author of the Gospel of Luke composed this Gospel. 

The author of the Gospel of Luke does not answer any of these important questions about his sources of information, so NT scholars have had to construct theories about what sources the author used in composing the Gospel of Luke.  

The author of the Gospel of Mark, however, was not an eyewitness to the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, so most of the stories the author of the Gospel of Luke used were, at best, second-hand stories from a non-eyewitness.  

Because the Gospel of Luke was probably composed between five and six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, it is unlikely that the author of this Gospel learned about the life, ministry, or death of Jesus from an actual and competent eyewitness to the alleged events described in the Gospel of Luke.  

6. MOST HISTORICAL EVENTS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE ARE FROM THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Most NT scholars believe that the author used three main sources: the Gospel of Mark, Q (an early collection of sayings and teachings of Jesus), and L (various traditions about Jesus that were maintained by the Christian community to which the author of Luke belonged).[11]

About 40% of the content of the Gospel of Luke comes from the Gospel of Mark, 42% according to the article on "Synoptic Gospels" in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels): 

However, a large portion of the Gospel of Luke contains sayings, parables, or teachings of Jesus, and our focus here is on stories about Jesus, or descriptions of alleged events in Jesus' life. If we just focus on the specific events described in the Gospel of Luke, most of those events are based on the Gospel of Mark.  

In the Acts of Jesus by Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar, the contents of the Gospels are analyzed in terms of specific events, and in the back of that book, there is a numbered list of the alleged specific events in the life of Jesus (on pages 558-564). In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), the Jesus Seminar identified 142 specific events, and 106 of those events are found in the Gospel of Luke:

Of the 106 specific alleged events in the Gospel of Luke, 64 of those events were based on the Gospel of Mark.  So, about 60% of the specific alleged events in the Gospel of Luke are from the Gospel of Mark. If we set aside the Birth, Infancy, & Childhood events in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke and only consider the events in Chapters 3 through 24 of the Gospel of Luke, then 64 out of 98 events, or about 65% of the events in those chapters, are from the Gospel of Mark. 
Furthermore, if we focus on just the alleged events in the Passion Story of the Gospel of Luke (Chapters 22 and 23), about 95% (18 out of 19) of those events are based on the Gospel of Mark.

The author of the Gospel of Mark, however, was not an eyewitness to the life, ministry, death or burial of Jesus, so most of the stories in the Gospel of Luke about specific alleged events were, at best, stories from a non-eyewitness source.  

The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, but Jesus and his disciples probably spoke Aramaic, especially when teaching or preaching to the general public.  Also, the Gospel of Mark was composed about four decades after the crucifixion of Jesus.  

The author of the Gospel of Mark was not an eyewitness of the events described in that Gospel, and, like Luke, there was a significant gap in time between Jesus and Mark, and there was a language gap between Jesus and Mark as well.

7. THE SOURCES BEHIND THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WERE COPIES OF COPIES, AND THE  EARLIEST MANUSCRIPT OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS A COPY OF A COPY OF A COPY OF A COPY.

THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK

8. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS AN ANCIENT HISTORICAL WORK THAT CONTAINS SOME MYTHOLOGY & LEGENDS 

THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK

The above seven general considerations cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of the changes and additions that the author of the Gospel of Luke made to stories about Jesus that were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark. Based on these general considerations, we may reasonably conclude that it is probable that the changes and additions in the Gospel of Luke to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.

COMING UP

In the next post of this series, I will discuss a second reason for believing that the additions and changes made to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark by the author of the Gospel of Luke are historically unreliable:

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no story about the birth of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds a birth story about Jesus to the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the birth story in the Gospel of Luke. 

END NOTES

1. Marcus Borg, "The Study of Jesus and Christian Origins" in Jesus at 2000 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), see pages 132-134. See also: John P. Meier, Chapter 1, in A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (referenced in End Note #3 below), especially pages 41-45, and the helpful essay "Jesus and the Gospels" by Christopher Tuckett in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), pages 71-86.

2. I will cover this point later in this post, in my discussion of general considerations that indicate the unreliability of the Gospel of Luke, specifically the general consideration #6. 

3. These issues are from a Google AI Overview, returned from the input phrase: "unreliability of ancient historical works” - viewed 11-23-25.

4. Life expectancy in 1st-century Palestine...(need to find my notes on this).

5. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp.266-267.

6. Jesus and his disciples were probably not educated enough to write in any language (need references to Jesus scholars)

7. Mark Allan Powell, Fortress Introduction to the Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), p.97.

8. The Gospel of Luke is probably the only book in the New Testament that was written by a gentile (need references to NT scholars)

9. Mark Allan Powell, Fortress Introduction to the Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), p.98.

10. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp.375-377.

11. Fortress Introduction to the Gospels, "Jesus and the Gospels", and The New Interpreters Bible, Vol. IX. (need page numbers).

My Divide-and-Conquer Strategy: QUALIFIED Skeptical Claims

WHERE WE ARE

I have just finished my case for the historical unreliability of the 4th Gospel, showing this skeptical claim to be true:

1. It is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

This is part of a larger case for the historical unreliability of the Gospels in general. 

THREE MORE STRONG SKEPTICAL CLAIMS 

I could continue to knock the Gospels down one at a time, arguing for these three further skeptical conclusions:

2. It is very probable that the Gospel of Luke provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

3. It is very probable that the Gospel of Matthew provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

4. It is very probable that the Gospel of Mark provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

Establishing these additional skeptical conclusions would destroy any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

THREE QUALIFIED SKEPTICAL CLAIMS

However, that is not how I plan to proceed.  It is not necessary to establish the strong skeptical claims (2), (3), and (4) in order to destroy any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.  Thus, it is OVERKILL to attempt to prove those three additional skeptical claims about the Gospels.

Instead, one can show that there is no chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus by establishing the following qualified skeptical claims about the Gospels:

2A. It is very probable that the events and details in the narratives in the Gospel of Luke that the Gospel of Luke adds to, or modifies, from the narratives in the Gospel of Mark, are historically unreliable.

3A. It is very probable that the events and details in the narratives in the Gospel of Matthew that the Gospel of Matthew adds to, or modifies, from the narratives in the Gospel of Mark, are historically unreliable.

4A. It is very probable that the events and details in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.

Establishing the skeptical claims (2A) and (3A) would eliminate the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as potential sources for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, and this would leave the Gospel of Mark as the only potential Gospel source for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

It is not necessary to show that the representations of the teachings of Jesus presented in the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew are historically unreliable, because it is the stories or narratives about events in those Gospels that are needed for building a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew get most of their narrative material from the Gospel of Mark, we can reduce the scope of skepticism about those two Gospels by focusing exclusively on events and details that the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Matthew add to, or modify, from the Gospel of Mark.  In other words, we can separate out the issue of the historical reliability of the narrative events and details in the Gospel of Mark from the issue of the historical reliability of the narrative events and details that are unique to the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Matthew.

Once it has been established that the Gospel of Mark is the only potential Gospel source for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, establishing claim (4A) would be GAME OVER for Christian apologetic cases for the resurrection! This would be sufficient to eliminate any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

It is not necessary to show that the events and details in narratives throughout the entire Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. Skeptics only need to show that the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable, because that would be the only remaining Gospel source for most of the key historical claims needed to build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, given that the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of Matthew have been eliminated as potential sources for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 14: Summary and INDEX

WHERE WE ARE

In this series of posts, I have shown these claims to be true:

• It is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
• It is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.
• It is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.
• It is very probable that the content of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.

This means that historical claims based on passages from the Gospel of John cannot be used as part of a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

In their cases for the resurrection of Jesus, Christian apologists make a number of historical claims or assumptions that are based on passages from the Gospel of John, mostly passages from Chapter 18, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John.

Since all, or nearly all, cases made by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus make use of a number of historical claims or assumptions that are based on passages from the Gospel of John (mostly from Chapters 18, 19, and 20), all, or nearly all, cases for the resurrection of Jesus are defective, because a number of the historical claims or assumptions in those cases are historically dubious.

PHASE I: IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE

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, as well as the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

The historical problems described in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series are sufficient to make it probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus.

PHASE II: IT IS VERY PROBABLE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE

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, Part 2, Part 3, and 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 also 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 some individuals, problems that make it probable that those alleged teachings or conversations of Jesus are either fictional or historically unreliable, we now have good reason to conclude that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus. Thus, passages from the 4th Gospel cannot be used as a part of a strong case for the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

PHASE III: KEY CHAPTERS OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN ARE HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE

In Part 11, I argue that there are several significant historical problems in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable in general, the specific historical problems with Chapter 18 show that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 is historically unreliable.  

In Part 12, I argue that there are several significant historical problems in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable in general, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, the specific historical problems with Chapter 19 show that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 is historically unreliable.  

In Part 13, I argue that there are several significant historical problems in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John, and that because we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable in general, and because we have previously determined that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, and because we have previously determined that it is very probable that Chapter 19 is historically unreliable, the specific historical problems with Chapter 20 show that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 20 is historically unreliable. 

Because all, or nearly all, cases for the resurrection of Jesus contain a number of historical claims or assumptions that are based on passages from the Gospel of John, and because  most of the historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus that are based on passages from the Gospel of John are based on passages from Chapter 18, Chapter 19, and/or Chapter 20 of that Gospel, all, or nearly all, cases for the resurrection of Jesus are defective, because they make a number of historical claims or assumptions that are historically dubious.

ONE FINAL PROBLEM WITH CASES FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

In Part 10, I present a dilemma about the cases presented by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus.  If my previous argument for the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John is correct, then some key historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus are cast into serious doubt.  However, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Gospel of John is historically reliable, then that also casts serious doubt on some key historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus.  Either way, there are some key historical claims or assumptions in cases for the resurrection of Jesus that are historically dubious.

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 13: Chapter 20

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1 through Part 9 of this series, I argue that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

In Part 10, I present a dilemma about the cases presented by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus.  If my previous argument for the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John is correct, then some key historical claims in cases for the resurrection of Jesus are cast into serious doubt.  However, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Gospel of John is historically reliable, then that also casts serious doubt on some key historical claims in cases for the resurrection of Jesus. 

In addition to the general historical unreliability of the Gospel of John, there are a number of specific historical problems with key chapters of the Gospel of John (i.e. Chapter 18, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20) that cast doubt on the historical reliability of the contents of those key chapters.

In Part 11, I argue that there are several historical problems in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, and that this shows that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 is historically unreliable.  In Part 12, I argue that there are several historical problems in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, and that this shows that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 is historically unreliable. 

HISTORICAL PROBLEMS IN CHAPTER 20 

Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John can be divided into four main parts/events:

I. The Resurrection of Jesus (John 20:1-10)

II. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18)

III. Jesus Appears to the Disciples (John 20:19-23)

IV. Jesus Appears to Thomas (John 20:24-29)

In this post, I will point out several significant historical problems in each of the above four parts of Chapter 20 and argue that it is very probable that the content of this chapter is historically unreliable.

I. The Resurrection of Jesus (John 20:1-10)

Here are some of the historical problems in the opening verses of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John about the alleged resurrection of Jesus:

• Because the alleged proper burial of Jesus in a stone tomb is itself historically dubious, stories about finding the tomb of Jesus empty are also historically dubious.[1]
• In the Gospel of John, when Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, it is still dark (John 20:1), but in the Gospel of Mark, the sun has already risen when she heads out to go to the tomb (Mark 16:2).
• In the Gospel of John, when Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty, she runs and tells two of Jesus' disciples about this (John 20:2), but in the Gospel of Mark, none of the women, including Mary Magdalene, tells any of the disciples about finding the tomb to be empty (Mark 16:5-8).
• In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene tells the "beloved disciple" that the tomb of Jesus is empty (John 20:2), but none of the other Gospels ever mentions that there was a "beloved disciple" among Jesus' disciples. 
• In the Gospel of John, after Mary Magdalene tells Peter and the "beloved disciple" about the empty tomb, both Peter and the "beloved disciple" run to examine the tomb for themselves, but in the Gospel of Mark, none of the disciples go to examine the tomb, because the women don't tell the disciples about the tomb being empty (Mark 16:5-8), and in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no mention of any male disciples going to examine the tomb for themselves (Matthew 28:1-11), and in the Gospel of Luke, Peter runs to the tomb to examine it, but there is no mention of any other disciple going with Peter to the tomb (Luke 24:10-12).
• In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene tells Peter and the "beloved disciple" that she does not know where the body of Jesus had been moved (John 20:1-2), but in the Gospel of Mark, none of the women tell any disciple about finding the tomb empty (Mark 16:5-8), and in the Gospel of Matthew, the women, including Mary Magdalene, meet the risen Jesus before they return to the disciples (Matthew 28:5-10), so Mary would NOT have been puzzled about what happened to the body of Jesus when she had arrived back with the disciples, and in the Gospel of Luke, the women pass on a message to the disciples from two men "in dazzling clothes" (angels? ascended prophets?) at the tomb that Jesus had risen from the dead (Luke 24:2-10), so the women, including Mary Magdalene, were presumably NOT puzzled about why the tomb was empty. 
• In the Gospel of John, Peter and the "beloved disciple" find "linen wrappings" in the otherwise empty tomb (John 20:3-6), but in the Gospel of Mark, in the Gospel of Matthew, and in the Gospel of Luke, the body of Jesus is wrapped in a linen cloth or sheet, not in linen strips or wrappings (Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59-60, and Luke 24:53). Furthermore, wrapping dead bodies in strips of cloth was not practiced in Palestine in the first century, so this detail in the Gospel of John is anachronistic and thus probably fictional.[2]
• In the Gospel of John, the disciples who find the tomb empty do not fully understand that Jesus had risen from the dead "for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." (John 20:9). The failure of Peter and the "beloved disciple" to immediately and fully comprehend that Jesus had risen from the dead is implausible and dubious on its face.  According to the Gospel of John, they knew that Jesus had turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), and that Jesus had fed thousands of people with two fishes and five loaves of bread (John 6:1-14), and that Jesus had walked on water (John 6:16-21), and that Jesus had raised people from the dead (John 11:38-44 & 12:9-11).  According to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus had repeatedly predicted his death and resurrection (Mark 8:31, 9:30-31, 10:32-34, and Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19), so there would have been no doubt or puzzlement among Jesus' disciples upon finding Jesus' tomb empty, and upon finding the burial cloth(s) of Jesus in the tomb if Jesus had actually performed the miracles that the Gospel of John claims he performed.

Since we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, and that it is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, the presence of several significant historical problems in this first section of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John about the alleged resurrection of Jesus make it very probable that the content of this opening section of Chapter 20 is historically unreliable. 

II. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18)

Here are some of the historical problems in the section of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene:

• In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene bends down to look into the tomb (John 20:11), but in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Luke, she goes inside the tomb to see what is in it (Mark 16:4-5 & Luke 24:1-2).
• In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene sees two angels in white sitting inside the tomb (John 20:11-12), but in the Gospel of Mark, she sees one young man dressed in white sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:4-5). In the Gospel of Matthew, she sees just one angel in clothing white as snow outside of the tomb, sitting on the rock that had previously blocked the entrance to the tomb (Matthew 28:1-5). In the Gospel of Luke, she doesn't see anyone in the tomb initially, but then two men in dazzling clothes suddenly appear standing near her (Luke 24:1-4).  None of the other Gospels agrees with the description of this alleged event given in the Gospel of John. 
• In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene is weeping when she looks into the tomb and the angels ask why she is weeping (John 20:11-13), but in the Gospel of Mark, there is no mention that Mary was weeping and the young man inside the tomb does not ask why Mary was weeping (Mark 16:1-7), and in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no mention that Mary was weeping, and the angel does not ask why Mary was weeping (Matthew 28:1-7), and in the Gospel of Luke, there is no mention that Mary was weeping, and two men in dazzling clothes do not ask why Mary was weeping (Luke 24:1-7).  None of the other Gospels agrees with the Gospel of John about what the men/angels said to Mary at the tomb.
• In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene tells the angels that she does not know where the body of Jesus has been taken (John 20:11-13), but in the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke, Mary doesn't say anything to the young man/angel/two men inside/near the tomb (Mark 16:4-7, Matthew 28:1-8, & Luke 24:1-10). In the Gospel of Mark, the young man inside the tomb tells Mary the tomb is empty because Jesus has risen from the dead and is headed back to Galilee (Mark 16:4-7), so there was no reason for Mary to talk about her puzzlement about where the body of Jesus had been moved. In the Gospel of Matthew, the angel sitting on the rock outside the tomb tells Mary that Jesus has risen from the dead and is on his way to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-8), so there was no reason for Mary to talk about her puzzlement about where the body of Jesus had been moved. Furthermore, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus greets Mary on her way back to the disciples, so she sees for herself that Jesus has risen (Matthew 28:5-10), thus Mary would NOT have told any of the disciples that she was concerned about where the dead body of Jesus had been moved. In the Gospel of Luke, the two men in dazzling clothes tell Mary that Jesus has risen from the dead (Luke 24:1-10), and thus Mary would not have still been puzzled about where the dead body of Jesus had been taken when she communicated with Jesus' disciples later that morning. None of the other Gospels agrees with the account of this alleged event given in the Gospel of John.
• In the Gospel of John, when Mary Magdalene starts to leave the tomb, the risen Jesus appears to her, but she does not recognize Jesus (John 20:12-15), but in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus does not appear to Mary when she leaves the tomb (Mark 16:1-8 & Luke 24:1-10). In the Gospel of Matthew, Mary sees the risen Jesus after she leaves the tomb, but she recognizes Jesus and worships him (Matthew 28:5-10). None of the other Gospels agrees with the account of this alleged event given in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, in a letter written at least a decade before any of the Gospels, Paul lists various alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, but says nothing about the risen Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Finally, it is implausible that Mary would not recognize Jesus if his physical body had been raised from the dead. The shift from failing to recognize Jesus to recognizing Jesus suggests that this account in the Gospel of John is either a fictional story or that the appearance of Jesus to Mary was a dream, a hallucination, or a memory of seeing someone else at the tomb that was re-interpreted by Mary sometime after the experience took place.
• In the Gospel of John, Jesus asks Mary Magdalene why she was weeping, Jesus tells Mary not to touch his body, and Jesus gives Mary a message to take to his disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:15-17), but in none of the other Gospels does Jesus ask Mary why she is weeping, in none of the other Gospels does Jesus tell Mary to not touch his body, and in none of the other Gospels does Jesus tell Mary to take the above message to his disciples (Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28:1-10, & Luke 24:1-10).  None of the other Gospels agrees with the Gospel of John about what the risen Jesus allegedly said to Mary.
• In the Gospel of John, after seeing the risen Jesus at the tomb, Mary Magdalene goes to Jesus' disciples and tells them, "I have seen the Lord." (John 20:16-18), but in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke, Mary does not see the risen Jesus at the tomb, and in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians he lists a number of appearances of the risen Jesus but makes no mention of an appearance to Mary Magdalene (1 Cor. 15:3-8). In the Gospel of Mark, Mary sees a young man in a white robe sitting inside the tomb and then she doesn't tell any of the disciples about her visit to the tomb (Mark 16:1-8), and in the Gospel of Luke, Mary sees two men in dazzling clothes in or near the tomb, and she tells the disciples about her experience, but she does not claim to have seen the risen Jesus (Luke 24:1-10).  
• In Part 7 of this series, I argued that the dialogue between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in this part of the Gospel of John (John 20:11-18) is probably either fictional or is historically unreliable.

Since we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, and that it is very probable that Chapter 19 is historically unreliable, the presence of several significant historical problems in this second section of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene make it very probable that the this second section of Chapter 20 is historically unreliable. 

III. Jesus Appears to the Disciples (John 20:19-23)

Here are some of the historical problems in the third section of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem to his disciples:

• In the Gospel of John, the risen Jesus appears to his disciples in Jerusalem on Sunday evening, about 48 hours after he was allegedly buried in a tomb (John 20:19), but both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew clearly imply that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place after the disciples had returned to Galilee (Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28:1-10 & 28:16-20).  Since it took about a week to travel on foot from Jerusalem to Galilee, this means that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified, according to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. 
• In the Gospel of John, when the risen Jesus first appears to his disciples, Jesus shows an alleged wound in his side to them (John 20:20), but it is doubtful that Jesus had a wound in his side.[3]  
• In the Gospel of John, when the risen Jesus first appears to his disciples, Jesus shows alleged nail wounds in his hands to them (John 20:20), but it is unclear whether Jesus' hands were nailed to the cross.[4]
• In the Gospel of John, the risen Jesus tells his disciples: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (John 20:21), but in the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus does not say this when he appears to his disciples (Matthew 28:16-20), and in the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus does not say this when he appears to his disciples (Luke 24:36-49). 
• In the Gospel of John, when the risen Jesus appears to his disciples, he breathes on his disciples and tells them: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22), but in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke, when the risen Jesus appears to his disciples, no mention is made of Jesus breathing on his disciples, and Jesus does not say to them "Receive the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:16-20 & Luke 24:36-49).  Furthermore, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus implies that the Holy Spirit has not yet been sent to the disciples and that they must wait in Jerusalem for this event to happen at a later date (Luke 24:49). 
• In the Gospel of John, when Jesus first appears to his disciples, he tells them: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:23), but in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke, when the risen Jesus first appears to his disciples, he does say the words quoted above, and he does not tell them that they have the authority to determine whether someone's sins will be forgiven (Matthew 28:16-20 & Luke 24:36-49).

Since we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, and that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, and that Chapter 19 is historically unreliable, the presence of several significant historical problems in this third section of Chapter 20 about the alleged first appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples makes it very probable that this third section of Chapter 20 is historically unreliable. 

IV. Jesus Appears to Thomas (John 20:24-29)

Here are some of the historical problems in the section of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Thomas:

• In the Gospel of John, Thomas, one of Jesus' twelve disciples, was not present when Jesus first appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem about 48 hours after Jesus was allegedly buried in a tomb (John 20:19-25), but this conflicts with the Gospel of Mark and with the Gospel of Matthew (see the firsts bullet point above on Jesus appearing to his disciples). Furthermore, in the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus first appears to his disciples in Jerusalem, but the risen Jesus appears to his eleven remaining disciples (the twelve minus Judas Iscariot) on Sunday evening, about 48 hours after Jesus was allegedly buried in a tomb (Luke 24:33-42), so according to the Gospel of Luke, Thomas was present when Jesus first appeared to his disciples.
• In the Gospel of John, Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead unless he could see and touch alleged nail wounds in the hands of Jesus (John 20:25), but it is unclear whether Jesus' hands were actually nailed to the cross.[4]
• In the Gospel of John, Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead unless he could see and touch an alleged wound in Jesus' side (John 20:25), but it is doubtful that Jesus had a wound in his side.[3]
• In the Gospel of John, the eleven remaining disciples were gathered together in Jerusalem a week after the first Easter Sunday (John 20:26), but this conflicts with the Gospel of Matthew, because the women who visited the tomb on the first Easter Sunday morning, saw the risen Jesus on the way back to the disciples, and Jesus gave them a message: “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” (Matthew 28:5-10). It is very unlikely that the disciples would have stayed in Jerusalem for another week after receiving the command from the risen Jesus to go to Galilee and meet him there.
• In the Gospel of John, the risen Jesus tells his disciple Thomas to put his hand in the wound in Jesus' side (John 20:27), but it is doubtful that Jesus had a wound in his side[3], and no other Gospel ever has Jesus tell any of his disciples to touch a wound in his side, or to touch any wound on his body (Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28:1-10 & 28:16-20, and Luke 24:1-52).
• In the Gospel of John, when Thomas becomes convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead, he addresses the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" implying that Jesus was God, and Jesus treats this statement as being correct (John 20:28-29), but this is anachronistic. The belief that Jesus was God incarnate took decades to develop, not just a few days. So, this detail is a fictional detail, a projection of later Christian theology back into the mouth of a disciple, only about a week after the crucifixion of Jesus.[5]
• In the Gospel of John, the risen Jesus says to Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." (John 20:29), but no other Gospel ever has Jesus make that statement, and no other Gospel ever has the risen Jesus say anything to Thomas.

Since we have previously determined that it is very probable that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, and that it is very probable that Chapter 18 is historically unreliable, and that Chapter 19 is historically unreliable, the presence of several significant historical problems in this section of Chapter 20 about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciple Thomas makes it very probable that this fourth section of Chapter 20 is historically unreliable. 

CONCLUSION ABOUT CHAPTER 20

Because it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, because it is very probable that the content of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, and because it is very probable that the content of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, the presence of several historical problems in each of the four main sections of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John makes it very probable that the content of Chapter 20 is also historically unreliable.

END NOTES

1. See Part 12 of this series, especially the section called: "IV. The Burial of Jesus (John 19:38-42)".

2. R. Alan Culpepper, "The Gospel of Luke" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.472.

3. No other Gospel ever mentions Jesus being wounded in his side while on the cross. No other Gospel ever mentions there being a wound on the side of the risen Jesus. No other Gospel ever mentions that the risen Jesus showed a wound in his side to his disciples. No other Gospel ever mentions that Jewish leaders asked for the legs of the crucified men to be broken. No other Gospel ever mentions the breaking of the legs of the other men who were crucified with Jesus. The story of the wound in Jesus' side is probably a fictional event created by the author of the Gospel of John on the basis of two Old Testament prophecies: (a) that none of Jesus' bones would be broken (John 19:36), and (b) that Jesus would be looked upon by those who pierced him (John 19:37).

4. In the descriptions of Jesus' crucifixion, none of the Gospels (including the Gospel of John) state that Jesus' hands were nailed to the cross, and none of the Gospels (including the Gospel of John) state that Jesus' feet were nailed to the cross, and none of the Gospels ever mention any wounds in Jesus' feet before he was buried, and none of the Gospels ever mention wounds in the feet of the risen Jesus, and none of the Gospels, except for the Gospel of John, ever mention any wounds in Jesus' hands. Romans often tied victims of crucifixion to their crosses. So, there is good reason to doubt that Jesus' hands were nailed to the cross. In the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus shows his hands and his feet to the disciples, but there is no indication that he was showing them wounds in his hands or in his feet (Luke 24:36-40). Jesus was simply demonstrating that he had a tangible, physical body, to prove he was not a ghost. 

5. The scholars of The Jesus Seminar make this point:

When Thomas blurts out "My Master! My God!" in v. 28, we have evidence that this tradition developed very late: in the earlier strata of the New Testament Jesus is never referred to as God.

The Acts of Jesus by Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998), p.488.

The highly respected NT and Jesus scholar Raymond Brown concluded that Jesus and his disciples did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah during his lifetime (see End Note #3 in Part 12 of this series), so it is highly unlikely that either Jesus or his disciples would proclaim that he was God himself just days after his crucifixion. 

Although the author of the Gospel of John appears to view Jesus as God incarnate, none of the other earlier Gospels imply this view of Jesus, and the Gospel of John was probably written six or seven decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, and two or three decades after the Gospel of Mark, and was probably the last of the four Gospels to be written. So, although it took decades for the belief that Jesus was God incarnate to develop, this idea was projected by the author of the Gospel of John back into the words of Jesus and his disciples. This is, in fact, one of the most obvious and egregious ways in which the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the words and teachings of Jesus.