This is the fourth of four quarterly specials in Giford's Bible Study Programme.

The Gospel of John is very much the odd one out among the canonical Gospels. It is far more theological (as opposed to historical) in content, does not share the similarities of phrasing with the Synoptic Gospels, and is usually regarded as having been written much later (possibly around 90 - 100 AD). It is therefore not often given much weight as a factual description of Jesus' life.

Dating

John's gospel is hard to date. For the most part, it is dated by its style, which is of course less reliable than dating it by events it refers to or sources it uses.

This leaves the way open for literalists to insist that it was written by one of the disciples - and the last verses are often quoted to support this.

The only direct method of dating the Gospel comes from a pair of verses towards the end, which read:

Jesus saith unto him, 'If I will that [the disciple Jesus loved] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.' Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, 'He shall not die;' but, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?' This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

- John 21:22-24

This unusual verse seems to be explaining why Jesus appeared to promise to return within the lifetime of the disciple, yet did not return. It cannot therefore have been written during the lifetime of the disciple, making the following claim that that disciple wrote the Gospel very strange indeed. One widely recognised solution is the the Fourth Gospel was not composed as a single work, but rather was reworked in several stages. The later author added the explanation for Jesus non-return - and possibly made other edits - to an earlier work that he attributed to the disciple. This leaves open the possibility that there may be a kernel of historical truth mixed in with the later theology.

Sources

This raises the question of what sources were used in the writing of the Fourth Gospel. John¹ clearly refers to miracles of Jesus that the other gospels do not; therefore unless John was simply inventing stories, he had access to an independent tradition. Many Biblical scholars consider this to have been a written source, and refer to it as the Signs Gospel. Some claim a difference in writing styles between the accounts of Jesus' miracles and the more complex theological statements of Jesus in the fourth gospel, which would support the idea that the miracles are copied from another written source. It has also been suggested that John may have had access to one of the Synoptic gospels, but if so he clearly has not followed it closely.

Conservative Christian scholars have argued that the absence of references to the destruction of the Temple indicates a date before 70AD, when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans.

Theology or History? - Conflicts with Synoptics

The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are remarkably similar in both the events they describe and the words used to describe them - so similar, in fact, that it is widely agreed that some form of copying has taken place. The Fourth Gospel has a rather different problem. It differs from the other Gospels so radically - not just in wording but in its description of events - that it is hard to believe that both are accurate descriptions.

Where John disagrees with the Synoptic Gospels, it frequently appears that John is making a theological point at the expense of historical accuracy (it is a moot point whether John knows that this is what he is doing).

Examples of some of the more significant differences include:

• Only John mentions the raising of Lazarus (chapter 11). If I ever raise anyone from the dead, I would hope that that would be worthy of a mention in all my biographies, whatever else my achievements may be.
• The length of Jesus' ministry and the number of his journeys to Jerusalem during that time are implied in all three Synoptic Gospels to be one year and one journey. John, on the other hand, lists three separate occasions that Jesus visits the capital and a ministry of two or three years².
• Absence of various acts of Jesus - for instance, Matthew has Jesus give his famous Sermon on the Mount ('Blessed are the meek...'), and Luke clearly describes the same event, although he places it on a plain below the mountain. John does not describe anything similar.
• The timing of Jesus' crucifixion - the Synoptic Gospels depict the Last Supper as the Passover meal³, putting the crucifixion on Nissan⁴ 15. John, on the other hand, says that the Passover meal had not yet been eaten at the time of Jesus' arrest and trial⁵, meaning that Jesus must have been killed on Nissan 14, at the same time as the sacrificial lamb.

There are also stylistic differences - for instance, John is the only gospel to describe Jesus exorcising demons. The Fourth Gospel appears, therefore, to be a late theological work, rather than a historically reliable account of Jesus' life.