Historical Reliability Of John's Gospel Book Review
The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel Book Review
Summary:
It is felt that some readers would encounter difficulty in comprehending some of the material. Unless the author’s target audience is bible scholars or students of Seminary College, better word choices could have been used to attract a broader audience. With that being said, the book asks or suggests that readers should be convinced that either John was or was not the author of the Gospel of John. If one thinks about it, does it really matter if John was the author? The answer lies within each reader’s belief system based on his or her knowledge and understanding of the word of GOD (The King James Version, New King James Version, etc.) as well as other documented evidences such as this book. The author’s account, for the most part, is merely his …show more content…
interpretation based in part, on what other critics or scholars wrote (for or against) as proof of John as being the author. Blomberg triggers readers to ponder and question what motivates individuals to research so extensively. Reading The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel causes readers to decide if the author is trying to convince us or himself as to the authenticity and reliability of John’s accounts.
Was Blomberg’s accounts and interpretations of other critics an exercise in adding to the debate as to John’s significance to the life of Christ? It could be that all this author is presenting a parallel to the facts as well as myths as to why certain accounts were left out of the Bible or did not follow a sequential process as it has been suggested for other books of the Bible. It is noteworthy to state that unless the critics had an opportunity to witness for themselves what really took place (and we know that would be impossible since the suggested accounts took place more than 2000 years ago) no one really, truly knows. All we are left with is whether or not we accept what others, including Blomberg, has so carefully presented as evidence of who John was and whether or not he had enough of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to have left us with the accounts as illustrated in versions of the Holy Bible, other books, journals, articles as well as The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Based on what viewers believe or choose to believe, one walks
away firmer in their conviction that John was or was not the author of John’s Gospel.
As I begin my journey of reading The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, I am somewhat turned off by the difficulty in comprehending what the author is saying without using a dictionary. Maybe the author is targeting a specific a specific audience – those who are theology majors. However, for individuals who are not “theology inclined,” this is a hard read to say the least. Nevertheless, comments made by William Sanday regarding recent publications were proven unnecessarily skeptical of the reliability of John, was eye opening. If it is the intent of the author to expose readers to some of the biases he was confronted with as he prepared the “Introductory Considerations”, section of his book, it certainly opened my eyes. I find his explanation of Maurice Casey’s false attacks on John’s Gospel spot on. I would further submit that Casey never considered simply accepting John’s Gospel for what I believe it to be, a small portion of accounts surrounding the life of Jesus Christ, given by divine interpretation from God. To this end, I can concur with the comments made by C.K. Barrett and Barnabas Lindars. I am of the opinion that with all the material Blomberg researched and noted in the passage would cause some readers to be confused by all of the various accounts to the authencity of John’s Gospel. Although the author writes “… nowhere does this Gospel make any explicit claim concerning the identity of its author,” it is quite clear as Blomberg stated later in this section that all but one “piece of ancient, external evidence,” points to the apostle John as the author (under the inspiration of God Almighty). It is interesting that the author notes that “entities of apostolic authorship” did not discuss/comment about early post-New Testament Christian writers during the first half of the second century. It begs to question why would the writings/teachings of John are excluded. I am beginning to wonder if there was a lack of understanding or disbelief in the contributions John made as an apostle as well as someone who experienced his own personal and public accounts of the life of Jesus. As for Polycarp, one would conclude that being a disciple of John and if there were no jealousy or envy involved, he would want to be honest in noting the accounts of John. In direct contrast, it is encouraging that other critics do not share such like opinions. The author goes through much detail in integrating evidence in support of John as the author of this Gospel. My thoughts lend towards the fact it depends on what readers choose to believe, based upon their faith and understanding of the Bible and other biblical sources. In reading the passage “Evidence in support of John as author”, it is easy for me to agree with B.F. Westcott. His break down of justifying John’s authorship based upon five stages, is comprehensive and makes good use of references from the Bible. Reading the passage, draws me to the conclusion that the writers who subscribe to the belief that John could not be the author had to decide to totally ignore the obvious as stated “Evidence against John as author”. It appears those writers had to create the ideas to support their notion that John could not be the author and provided some version of fact that does not stand up to the test. In order to provide evidence that John is not the author means, to me, those writers ignored the Bible as a biblical source. In my opinion, John was one who had a personal relationship with Christ and because of this relationship as well as under the inspiration of God; John was indeed, the author. Even though the author presented writings from Charlesworth in trying to make a case for Thomas as Blomberg points out, “Charlesworth therefore, has not mounted a persuasive ease for Thomas”. I am in agreement with Blomberg that all Charlesworth did was made stronger argument for John being the author for the Fourth Gospel. In reading the passage “Stages of redaction”, I submit that it is quite possible that it is not as important to know who wrote the Fourth Gospel or any part of the Bible for that matter. If you have a belief that there is a “higher power” and that all that we have on earth, is every thing that makes up the planet from climate to technology, to mankinds past, present, and future had to come with being by the one true God. It is my belief that there are just some things God does not want man kind to focus on any other man or woman mentioned in The Holy Scripture other than God himself and Jesus Christ. The comment about John seemingly being anti-Jewish and suggesting this view can be “accounted for by the situation his church faces at the end of the first century”, appears to draw a conclusion that may not be true. Without an eyewitness account of the intent in what John said or did not say is no more than someone’s opinion of other interpretation of accounts concerning John and the Fourth Gospel. It is interesting that The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel provides facts (based upon the Holy Bible) and the diversity of critics both for and against who John was and his views or the lack thereof. One cannot help but to wonder why the extensive analysis of whether John’s account of the Fourth Gospel was accurate or embellished. At this point, I question the motive of other resources and critics based on their reasoning and justification of what they have presented. What made individuals focus on John in such a way that they would go to great lengths to deny his authorship or justify that he was indeed one of the twelve disciples of Christ. John’s accounts are just as valid as Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, or anyone else who God allowed to have a part in the Bible. It is good to know that some critics viewed that John was independent in his writings. What or why is it so important to compare John’s version of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics? If no parables in the approximate forty passages in the Synoptics appeared in John, I do not know what differences it makes. It is just like anything else one chooses to publish – it is all open to criticisms and interpretations based on one’s beliefs or biases. It could be interjected that the Synoptics are probably not as much of a reliable source as the Bible. The quote Blomberg lists from F.F. Bruce, expresses my agreement that one would be hard-pressed to deny the fact that the criticisms of John are based on known facts, historical accounts as known to John, and based on divine intervention. There is no doubt that Blomberg spent an inordinate amount of time, research documentary, and commenting on what other writers could also devoted time and energy to dissecting everything that is known about John. It is pretty easy to conclude that while I am amazed with the depth of Blomberg’s commentary, it proves my original hypothesis. John being a disciple of Christ, not only had historical knowledge of the events as outlined in the Fourth Gospel but presented personal accounts of Christ as someone who walked with Jesus and blessed us with the opportunity of knowing about Jesus from what God gave John to write.
The author’s comment that “the spectrum of scholarly views today remain remarkably similar to what it was at the beginning of the twentieth century,” suggests to me that there is similarity and agreement of historical facts surrounding the Gospel of John. I find it noteworthy that the author was so moved by the four convictions outlined by Sanday that it prompted him to write this book. Additionally, this passage suggests that the author did not fully embrace the idea of writing this commentary at first. One can imagine that he may have wondered if he wanted to commit to the job and time involved, as well as possible obstacles that may have caused delays. However, for those who have a relationship with the Lord, they know that everything happens in the appropriate time (God’s timing) and help from people used by God. It is very interesting that of all the people he thanked and acknowledged none of them was God.
Summary:
It is felt that some readers would encounter difficulty in comprehending some of the material. Unless the author’s target audience is bible scholars or students of Seminary College, better word choices could have been used to attract a broader audience. With that being said, the book asks or suggests that readers should be convinced that either John was or was not the author of the Gospel of John. If one thinks about it, does it really matter if John was the author? The answer lies within each reader’s belief system based on his or her knowledge and understanding of the word of GOD (The King James Version, New King James Version, etc.) as well as other documented evidences such as this book. The author’s account, for the most part, is merely his …show more content…
interpretation based in part, on what other critics or scholars wrote (for or against) as proof of John as being the author. Blomberg triggers readers to ponder and question what motivates individuals to research so extensively. Reading The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel causes readers to decide if the author is trying to convince us or himself as to the authenticity and reliability of John’s accounts.
Was Blomberg’s accounts and interpretations of other critics an exercise in adding to the debate as to John’s significance to the life of Christ? It could be that all this author is presenting a parallel to the facts as well as myths as to why certain accounts were left out of the Bible or did not follow a sequential process as it has been suggested for other books of the Bible. It is noteworthy to state that unless the critics had an opportunity to witness for themselves what really took place (and we know that would be impossible since the suggested accounts took place more than 2000 years ago) no one really, truly knows. All we are left with is whether or not we accept what others, including Blomberg, has so carefully presented as evidence of who John was and whether or not he had enough of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to have left us with the accounts as illustrated in versions of the Holy Bible, other books, journals, articles as well as The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Based on what viewers believe or choose to believe, one walks
away firmer in their conviction that John was or was not the author of John’s Gospel.
As I begin my journey of reading The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, I am somewhat turned off by the difficulty in comprehending what the author is saying without using a dictionary. Maybe the author is targeting a specific a specific audience – those who are theology majors. However, for individuals who are not “theology inclined,” this is a hard read to say the least. Nevertheless, comments made by William Sanday regarding recent publications were proven unnecessarily skeptical of the reliability of John, was eye opening. If it is the intent of the author to expose readers to some of the biases he was confronted with as he prepared the “Introductory Considerations”, section of his book, it certainly opened my eyes. I find his explanation of Maurice Casey’s false attacks on John’s Gospel spot on. I would further submit that Casey never considered simply accepting John’s Gospel for what I believe it to be, a small portion of accounts surrounding the life of Jesus Christ, given by divine interpretation from God. To this end, I can concur with the comments made by C.K. Barrett and Barnabas Lindars. I am of the opinion that with all the material Blomberg researched and noted in the passage would cause some readers to be confused by all of the various accounts to the authencity of John’s Gospel. Although the author writes “… nowhere does this Gospel make any explicit claim concerning the identity of its author,” it is quite clear as Blomberg stated later in this section that all but one “piece of ancient, external evidence,” points to the apostle John as the author (under the inspiration of God Almighty). It is interesting that the author notes that “entities of apostolic authorship” did not discuss/comment about early post-New Testament Christian writers during the first half of the second century. It begs to question why would the writings/teachings of John are excluded. I am beginning to wonder if there was a lack of understanding or disbelief in the contributions John made as an apostle as well as someone who experienced his own personal and public accounts of the life of Jesus. As for Polycarp, one would conclude that being a disciple of John and if there were no jealousy or envy involved, he would want to be honest in noting the accounts of John. In direct contrast, it is encouraging that other critics do not share such like opinions. The author goes through much detail in integrating evidence in support of John as the author of this Gospel. My thoughts lend towards the fact it depends on what readers choose to believe, based upon their faith and understanding of the Bible and other biblical sources. In reading the passage “Evidence in support of John as author”, it is easy for me to agree with B.F. Westcott. His break down of justifying John’s authorship based upon five stages, is comprehensive and makes good use of references from the Bible. Reading the passage, draws me to the conclusion that the writers who subscribe to the belief that John could not be the author had to decide to totally ignore the obvious as stated “Evidence against John as author”. It appears those writers had to create the ideas to support their notion that John could not be the author and provided some version of fact that does not stand up to the test. In order to provide evidence that John is not the author means, to me, those writers ignored the Bible as a biblical source. In my opinion, John was one who had a personal relationship with Christ and because of this relationship as well as under the inspiration of God; John was indeed, the author. Even though the author presented writings from Charlesworth in trying to make a case for Thomas as Blomberg points out, “Charlesworth therefore, has not mounted a persuasive ease for Thomas”. I am in agreement with Blomberg that all Charlesworth did was made stronger argument for John being the author for the Fourth Gospel. In reading the passage “Stages of redaction”, I submit that it is quite possible that it is not as important to know who wrote the Fourth Gospel or any part of the Bible for that matter. If you have a belief that there is a “higher power” and that all that we have on earth, is every thing that makes up the planet from climate to technology, to mankinds past, present, and future had to come with being by the one true God. It is my belief that there are just some things God does not want man kind to focus on any other man or woman mentioned in The Holy Scripture other than God himself and Jesus Christ. The comment about John seemingly being anti-Jewish and suggesting this view can be “accounted for by the situation his church faces at the end of the first century”, appears to draw a conclusion that may not be true. Without an eyewitness account of the intent in what John said or did not say is no more than someone’s opinion of other interpretation of accounts concerning John and the Fourth Gospel. It is interesting that The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel provides facts (based upon the Holy Bible) and the diversity of critics both for and against who John was and his views or the lack thereof. One cannot help but to wonder why the extensive analysis of whether John’s account of the Fourth Gospel was accurate or embellished. At this point, I question the motive of other resources and critics based on their reasoning and justification of what they have presented. What made individuals focus on John in such a way that they would go to great lengths to deny his authorship or justify that he was indeed one of the twelve disciples of Christ. John’s accounts are just as valid as Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, or anyone else who God allowed to have a part in the Bible. It is good to know that some critics viewed that John was independent in his writings. What or why is it so important to compare John’s version of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics? If no parables in the approximate forty passages in the Synoptics appeared in John, I do not know what differences it makes. It is just like anything else one chooses to publish – it is all open to criticisms and interpretations based on one’s beliefs or biases. It could be interjected that the Synoptics are probably not as much of a reliable source as the Bible. The quote Blomberg lists from F.F. Bruce, expresses my agreement that one would be hard-pressed to deny the fact that the criticisms of John are based on known facts, historical accounts as known to John, and based on divine intervention. There is no doubt that Blomberg spent an inordinate amount of time, research documentary, and commenting on what other writers could also devoted time and energy to dissecting everything that is known about John. It is pretty easy to conclude that while I am amazed with the depth of Blomberg’s commentary, it proves my original hypothesis. John being a disciple of Christ, not only had historical knowledge of the events as outlined in the Fourth Gospel but presented personal accounts of Christ as someone who walked with Jesus and blessed us with the opportunity of knowing about Jesus from what God gave John to write.
The author’s comment that “the spectrum of scholarly views today remain remarkably similar to what it was at the beginning of the twentieth century,” suggests to me that there is similarity and agreement of historical facts surrounding the Gospel of John. I find it noteworthy that the author was so moved by the four convictions outlined by Sanday that it prompted him to write this book. Additionally, this passage suggests that the author did not fully embrace the idea of writing this commentary at first. One can imagine that he may have wondered if he wanted to commit to the job and time involved, as well as possible obstacles that may have caused delays. However, for those who have a relationship with the Lord, they know that everything happens in the appropriate time (God’s timing) and help from people used by God. It is very interesting that of all the people he thanked and acknowledged none of them was God.