What evidence supports the multiple sources for John's Gospel?

Answer 1

In this answer I explained, years ago, how there was not only no historical evidence for the Gospel stories, but how the historical record contradicts the Gospel stories. In particular, I pointed out that Luke dates the Nativity to the census of Quirinius, which took place long after Herod's death.

Answer 2

Scholars believe that there are multiple sources for the Gospel of John because of the varying writing style, theological emphasis, and content inconsistencies found throughout the text. Additionally, there are clues within the Gospel itself, such as the abrupt shift in tone and stories that don’t align with the synoptic Gospels, that suggest the author may have incorporated different sources. These factors contribute to the scholarly consensus that multiple sources were used in the composition of John’s Gospel.

Answer 3

A:The main two sources used in the Gospel of John are Mark's Gospel and Luke's gospel, although there is still support for the hypothetical Signs Gospel as a further source for certain material found only in John.

Essential background information is that the New Testament gospels were all written anonymously and only attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John later in the second century. Thus we do not know who wrote any of the gospels, but we can be sure that John was not written by an eyewitness to the life and mission of Jesus.

The gospel opens by stating (John 1:1-3), "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." True or otherwise, this is something that is necessarily beyond human knowledge. The synoptic authors certainly did not know this, describing the life of Jesus as beginning with his conception by the Holy Spirit, so how did John know? Centuries earlier, the Greek philosopher had imagined the Word (Logos) as a divine creator in the pagan milieu. Philo of Alexandria, a near-contemporary of Jesus, brought this into the Jewish milieu and described Logos as God's son, a second god, through whom the world was created as a rational and ordered universe. Philo described the Word as born of mother Wisdom and appearing in the world to be the agent through whom the great leaders of Israel learned what God expected of them. Apart from Wisdom, this was all the author of John needed in order to make Jesus pre-existing and divine.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are largely based on Mark's Gospel, as can be shown by a parallel reading in the original Greek language. However, even when telling the same account, there are differences in the three synoptic gospels so that it is possible to state which was used as a source for John. There is no evidence that the author knew anything about Matthew's Gospel, but he certainly knew Mark and Luke.

There are many passages in John that could only have come from Luke. In Luke chapter 5, we find that Jesus told the disciples to take their boat ot a little and cast their nets. They had been toiling all night, but had caught nothing, but did as Jesus said. They were astounded at the amount of fish they caught. This does not appear in John's Gospel during the life of Jesus, but a similar event is described in chapter 21, where verse 3 says they fished all night but caught nothing. Jesus told them to cast their nets on the other side, and they caught a multitude of fish. The two sisters, Mary and Martha appear in Luke's Gospel, as does Lazarus, who is in a parable in which Jesus tells of him dying and resurrected. In John's Gospel, Lazarus becomes the brother of Mary and Martha, and this time he really dies and is really resurrected by Jesus. Among the synoptic gospels, only Luke has Peter running to the empty tomb; in fact this is ruled out by Markand Matthew. John also has Peter run to the tomb, but has the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' outrun Peter, be the first to look inside and be the first to believe (this is a frequent contrast, with the beloved disciple always appearing at times when he can be compared favourably with Peter). The author, as usual, is careful not to directly contradict his source, and still has Peter the first to actually enter the empty tomb.

Other passages could only have come from direct from Mark, unless the author had another, now unknown source or personally knew of the events described, and would describe them just as Mark did. That the author did in fact use Mark can be demonstrated by his use of 'Markan intercalation', a literary device that the author of Mark had used to contrast two unrelated stories and create theological emphasis. Luke had been unaware of this technique, but we see it in Mark and then emphatically in John in the story of Peter denying Jesus, intercalated with the story of Jesus' passion.

Answer 4

There is no historical evidence that supports the Gospel stories. True, Josephus wrote about the beliefs held by followers of Jesus some fifty years later, but describing them in such general terms neither confirms the gospel stories nor even tells us much about what those followers believed. Nothing written about Jesus exists from his own lifetime - not even the gospels.

Thallus is reported to have written about a darkness over the earth. We know little about him, but he probably wrote shortly after 109 BCE, but other estimates include sometime after 52 CE or after 92 CE. Whenever he wrote and whatever he wrote, it seems unlikely he actually mentioned Jesus. This is not historical evidence.

One genuine historical event mentioned in Luke's Gospel is the census of Quirinius. When Emperor Augustus deposed Archelaus as tetrarch of Judea in 6 CE, he ordered Quirinius to undertake a census of that territory for tax purposes. According to Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary were required to leave Nazareth and go to Bethlehem in order to be counted in the census in Judea. Just one problem with this account is that Luke also says that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in April, 4 BCE. Whoever wrote Luke either did not realise that King Herod died ten years before the time of the census, or did not believe that his readers would be able to challenge his facts.

There is no historical evidence of King Herod's 'Slaughter of the Innocents' in Matthew 2:16-18. In fact there is no historical evidence for any of the events reported about Jesus in the gospels.