John the Apostle (c. 6 AD – c. 100 AD) or Saint John the Beloved was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament. Generally listed as the youngest apostle, he was the son of Zebedee and Salome. His brother was James, who was another of the Twelve Apostles. The Church Fathers identify him as John the Evangelist, John of Patmos, John the Elder, and the Beloved Disciple. Tradition has held that John is the author of the Gospel of John and four other books of the New Testament—the three Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation. In the Gospel, authorship is internally credited to the “disciple whom Jesus loved”.
How authentic is this Gospel?
Before I questioned the historicity and doctrinal development of the LDS church, the notion of debating the authenticity of any Gospel never registered on my radar. As LDS members we never encountered debate, learning or opinion on the relevance of New Testament books as part of our correlated programme. The standard view is the Bible is correct as far as it is translated correctly, given our possession of additional scripture and enhanced enlightenment from them, we didn’t need apparently to concern ourselves with consistency within the Gospels. As a result our skills in applying textual criticism were blunt to the point of extinction, probably due to a reliance on modern prophets, seers and revelators. Why do we need to question, compare, reason and evaluate when enlightened men by the spirit speak authoritatively.
John is not in harmony with the synoptics
To the extent the author is preaching a different a Gospel. You be the judge, I will endeavour to provide some highlights.
Major Themes
Synoptics Prepare for the Kingdom of God is coming on earth, to be heralded by a Messiah John Believe in Jesus Christ to gain eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven
Baptism apart from Jesus’s baptism by John the Baptist and a commision to baptise at the end of Matthew and later versions of Mark, this ordinance is not a feature of Jesus’s preaching or an activity undertaken by his disciples when he commissions them to preach in the synoptics. However, in John, Jesus refers to the ordinance with Nicodemus and his disciples are baptising.
References to himself in the synoptics Jesus commonly uses the term Son of Man, when evil spirits proclaim divinity, he quietens them. He is generally guarded about the terms of reference used about him. However, in John he is openly proclaiming that he is from the Father and knows him. He uses unique terms of reference such as The Bread of Life, the Light of the world. His attitude towards the Pharisees is challenging in terms of how he is referred to, whereas in the synoptics, his discussions and challenges with them are about attitudes and behaviour.
Parables are used by Jesus in the synoptics to challenge opinions and behaviour, they are not to be found in John, but he does apply previously unused metaphors, Living water, Lamb of God, etc.
Unique features exclusive to John No Gethsemane, no sacrament instituted, no casting out of impure spirits, washing his disciples feet, teaching Nicodemus, his prayer on behalf of his disciples (ch 17, good memory there by an illiterate disciple), raising Lazarus ch 10, conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacobs well, ch 4. Preaching to Samaritans. The Holy Spirit is coming.
Generalised Conclusion
It has been a revealing exercise, becoming aware of significant differences between John and the synoptics. Significant, is the variance between Jesus’s messages, one is about getting ready for apocalyptic changes coming on the earth. The emphasis of the synoptic Jesus, is change, prepare and be ready by following me, obeying God’s commandments, be found ready and worthy to be in God’s kingdom on earth. Whereas, Jesus in the Gospel of John is urging belief in himself to gain eternal life in the kingdom. A student of the New Testament should ask themselves whether these two views are compatible. Their aims differ, so do the processes to achieve those aims. I submit these differences are critically exclusive, they do not reflect two faces or modes of emphasis. How can one path not requiring an ordinance require that you follow, obey and perform good deeds, then the other concern itself primarily with belief in a man deity?
How is it compatible if one character shuns recognition, preaches observance, then in John, that same person is inviting controversy stating boldly and metaphorically he is from God, that he knows the father, that he alone is the way.
A Simple Answer to explain the difference is suggested by commentators in respect of the dates of the Gospels. John is considered the last written Gospel, between 90 – 100CE, at least ten years later than the oldest synoptic Luke. Before an answer is offered a frequently asked question needs exploring. Why didn’t the disciples keep records. Firstly they were illiterate, Acts makes this reference in respect of Peter & John, Acts 4:13 Secondly, if the Messiah’s coming is imminent, is there time to become learned and keep records. Jesus declares in Matt 16:28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”.
Evidence informs us, Jesus did not return and herald the Kingdom of God on earth. As time passed and the span between Jesus’s death and return increased, the first century Christians were faced with a challenge. How to account for his late arrival, by 90-100CE there were none personally acquainted with Jesus, standing alive to see the Son of Man coming in his physical kingdom. This includes the illiterate John, whose Gospel is most likely pseudepigrapha. A changed narrative was required to maintain the faith of Jesus’s community of followers, simply, his kingdom was not of this world, it is in the life to come. The manner of preparation preached by Jesus was similar to his religious hereditary, obey God’s commandments but with value added from his sermon on the mount, be good, be ready. So why the need to be part of Jesus’s community when essentially you can carry on being a good Jew? That would not apply however if eternal life was dependent on believing that Jesus was the Son of God. The author of John informs us why his work is necessary. John 20:31 “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”.
Personal Reflection I used to love the Gospel of John more than any other book in the New Testament, it’s style is different, it is a truly a celebration of Christ’s divinity. However, it does not fair well through my recently acquired critical thinking lens. It is the oldest of the Gospels, I am wary of writing further removed historically from its source that contains additional information in great detail. Beautiful though its contents are, they are diminished by the variance of its message and emphasis compared to the older synoptics. Therefore, I have become very sceptical of the Gospel of John, I find reason to doubt the authors sentiments as he is quite clear about the reason for their inclusion, to help me believe that Jesus is the Son of God, when such a declaration by evil spirits (who never figure in John) is suppressed by Jesus. Those he heals are informed not to tell who has brought about their miracle. In the synoptics Jesus is coy about being the Messiah, reticent for those closest to him to broadcast it. He does admit eventually to such a role. But, under closer examination it is a common mistake for Christians to equate Messiah with the Son of God. Yet John has Jesus revealing himself brazenly as the Son of God. For me, this is too much of a stretch to accept.