Embellishment in John's Gospel

[RedFan]

In John 20:31 the author was kind enough to tell us why he wrote: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Has that purpose induced a bit of embellishment of Jesus's actual words two verses earlier?

John 20:29 quotes Jesus as saying to Thomas “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The aorist tense John used, οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες ("those not having seen and having believed"), leaves one wondering who those believers could possibly be. We are just eight days after the resurrection here! At the moment Jesus supposedly mouthed those words, was there anyone on the planet who would qualify? What an odd thing for Him to say!

But if the author put those word in Jesus's mouth in order to encourage the church he was writing for 40+ years later, it makes better sense -- and fits nicely with his expressed purpose in writing two verses later. So . . . did Jesus really say this, or did the gospel writer make it up?

 

[Mattathias]

1. Jesus really said it. The Gospel writer didn’t make up anything.

Confidence in the reliability of scripture.

2. Jesus didn’t really say it. The Gospel writer made it up.

No (or low) confidence in the reliability of scripture. What else did the Gospel writer make up?

 

[RedFan]

1. Jesus really said it. The Gospel writer didn’t make up anything.

Confidence in the reliability of scripture.

2. Jesus didn’t really say it. The Gospel writer made it up.

No (or low) confidence in the reliability of scripture. What else did the Gospel writer make up?

I don't know whether to go with #1 or #2 (hence the OP). If we go with #2 (and the reliability just of John's gospel, not of "Scripture" writ large. was the OP's question), I don't know what else was made up -- but my confidence in the accuracy of the theological message, as opposed to the factual details, would remain high.

 

[SteVen]

Great topic, thanks.

I suppose if it was a direct quote, Jesus could have been speaking prophetically.
Not unusual for him to speak mysterious things.
Who understood the bit about the sign of Jonah until after the resurrection?
There is also the aspect of insertions in the narrative (or manuscript copies) due to it being based on
decades of oral tradition before being written down.

]

 

[RedFan]

There is also the aspect of insertions in the narrative (or manuscript copies) due to it being based on
decades of oral tradition before being written down.

]

That's an important point.

 

[Wrangler]

But if the author put those word in Jesus's mouth in order to encourage the church he was writing for 40+ years later, it makes better sense

I anything was embellished, it was the resurrected Jesus saying to baptize in the name of the 3. The reason is every recorded example in Scripture is of the Apostles only baptizing in the name of Jesus. So, we are left to conclude one of 2 possibilities:

1. The Apostles, who saw the risen Christ, disobeyed him.
2. The odd expression was an embellishment to force fit a doctrine not contained by the Apostles.

 

[RedFan]

I anything was embellished, it was the resurrected Jesus saying to baptize in the name of the 3. The reason is every recorded example in Scripture is of the Apostles only baptizing in the name of Jesus. So, we are left to conclude one of 2 possibilities:

1. The Apostles, who saw the risen Christ, disobeyed him.
2. The odd expression was an embellishment to force fit a doctrine not contained by the Apostles.

Well, that one isn't in John's gospel. That's Matthew talking! I was focused on John's gospel, because John was explicit in telling us that he was engaged in propaganda (and I use that word in its best sense without pejorative connotation). So John had some low-hanging fruit.

If you want to expand the subject of my OP to include embellishment by Matthew, however, feel free. I'm probably going to agree that Matthew -- presuming he wrote originally in Greek -- put at least one word in Jesus's mouth that Jesus probably wouldn't have used (ἐκκλησίᾳ, in 16:18 and 18:17). Can we examine that one before we turn on the Great Commission?

 

[Mr E]

In John 20:31 the author was kind enough to tell us why he wrote: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Has that purpose induced a bit of embellishment of Jesus's actual words two verses earlier?

John 20:29 quotes Jesus as saying to Thomas “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The aorist tense John used, οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες ("those not having seen and having believed"), leaves one wondering who those believers could possibly be. We are just eight days after the resurrection here! At the moment Jesus supposedly mouthed those words, was there anyone on the planet who would qualify? What an odd thing for Him to say!

But if the author put those word in Jesus's mouth in order to encourage the church he was writing for 40+ years later, it makes better sense -- and fits nicely with his expressed purpose in writing two verses later. So . . . did Jesus really say this, or did the gospel writer make it up?

I don't see any textual demand for this to have been any kind of embellishment. There were those who had seen the risen Christ and believed, and there were those who simply heard testimony from others that he had been raised, and believed it.

 

[RedFan]

I don't see any textual demand for this to have been any kind of embellishment. There were those who had seen the risen Christ and believed, and there were those who simply heard testimony from others that he had been raised, and believed it.

Perhaps. None are identified in the gospel, however. The rest of the Eleven seem to have believed because they saw the resurrected Jesus that same Easter day (a week before Thomas), not based on hearsay. In that intervening week it is certainly possible that some of them (or perhaps Mary Magdalene, or another person) spread the word to other followers of Christ -- but their fear of the Jewish leaders (John 20:19) would have called for caution in opening their mouths too widely.

 

[SteVen]

I don't see any textual demand for this to have been any kind of embellishment. There were those who had seen the risen Christ and believed, and there were those who simply heard testimony from others that he had been raised, and believed it.

That's a great point. (the context)

I had always taken that to mean belief in general. And that's how the church presents it. (typically)
But Jesus is here addressing the unbelief of Thomas in the resurrection.

And as you pointed out, not everyone saw the resurrected Christ.
The significance borne out in this verse below.

Romans 10:9 NIV
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

=