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.