Is John's Gospel Historically Accurate

Among the Gospels no work has been so abused, misused and denied authority like John. We wonder if this state of affairs is due to the book's stated purpose: proving that Jesus is the Christ. "". . . these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."" (John 20:30-31). As this conflicts with the agenda of those who attack the scriptures John has been one of their primary targets in their work to discredit scripture.

There has been, to say the least, a long war against John. Several German theologians assaulted John's gospel in the early 1800's. David F. Strauss wrote The Life of Christ in 1835, arguing that John and the other three Gospels (the Synoptics) were utterly irreconcilable. Other scholars (Baur, Hegel) followed suit. Soon the dominant view of John was that Judaism and Greek philosophy had worked together to produce this unusual gospel. Significant opposition by several scholars (J.B. Lightfoot and others) absolutely dismantled many of the core beliefs of the opponents of John. However, by the end of the century scholarly opinion had largely sided with those who discounted John's work. Two conclusions from those days still have influence today. First, John is viewed as historically unreliable. If you want to know what Jesus really did and said you have to read the Synoptics. John is theology, not history, we are told. Second, John's date was firmly set as late in the second-century, as it was believed that a Christian community far from Palestine wrote it to reconcile the Gospel to Greek philosophy. Continued events have shown that both conclusions are absolutely false. Let us ask and answer three critical questions about the Gospel of John.

Is John historically reliable? Unquestionably. There are no errors in geography or history found in John. Instead, we find that John is intimately acquainted with Palestine's land, cultures and traditions. He describes the Temple, cities, and landmarks of first-century Palestine with great detail. John knows there is a well in Synchar (John 4:4ff) which has now been found. He knows that to go from Cana to Capernaum one does indeed have to ""come down"" (John 4:46, 49, 51), as Cana is six hundred feet in elevation above Capernaum. There are twelve places not referred to in the other gospels that John knows about. John also knows travel distances in Palestine: two days from Bethany to Cana (John 1:28; 2:1). His detailed description of the Temple (John 10:22-23) clearly shows knowledge of the building before its destruction in AD 70. He correctly identifies and places Caiphas and Pontius Pilate. Most importantly, while in John's gospel Jesus says things differently He does not teach different things. The book's theology and Jesus' teaching fits well with the whole of the New Testament.

Is John a second-century work? The answer is clearly ""no."" Several remarkable papyrus fragments of John have been found, many of which are dated very early. An Egyptian piece (numbered p52) is dated around 125 AD. Allowing time for it to circulate to Egypt means it most certainly must have been written by AD 80 to 90. Other early papyrus fragments have been found. It is simply not true that John was written late in the second-century. Hard evidence says otherwise.

Is John a Greek work? Continued analysis of John's work has found that it is a Jewish work, and not Greek in nature. In fact, one Jewish scholar who has studied John has said ""To us Jews, the Fourth Gospel is the most Jewish of the four!"" Indeed, John references the Old Testament in many places, and often assumes that his readers will know the prophetic reference to which he implies. In John 10 Jesus is obviously alluding to Ezekiel 34 (the Good Shepherd prophecy) but the citation is never given, nor is the prophet named. There is a serious thematic development of Jesus being the ultimate fulfillment of Jewish festivals (Passover, 6:25ff; Tabernacles, ch. 7; Dedication, 10:22ff). Understanding Jesus' teaching here depends on knowing the meaning of these Jewish feasts. Simply put there is much in John that shows clear evidence of coming from a very Jewish hand.

The long war against John is not near any kind of conclusion. This is particularly true since the enemies of this great Gospel seem to never tire of bringing the same old, worn-out arguments to the battle, as ABC's recent program amply demonstrated. These arguments have been met repeatedly. Let us lay aside falsehood and turn to John's record of our Lord and ""behold His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."" (John 1:14).

This article depends heavily on the outstanding work done in Interpreting the Gospel of John by Gary M. Burge (Baker, 1992) and Paul Barnett's Is the New Testament Reliable? (IVP, 1986). I heartily recommend both books.