Professor Jimmy Dunn writes:
‘On the question of the historical value of John’s Gospel there is probably one of the biggest gulfs between New Testament scholarship and the ‘man in the pew’. In preaching and devotional Bible study the assumption is regularly made that all four Gospels are straightforward historical sources for information about what Jesus did or said. Whereas scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John’s Gospel reflects much more of the early churches’ understanding of Jesus than of Jesus’ own self-understanding. There is Christian interpretation in the other three Gospels, as we have seen, but in John’s gospel there is much more of it.’
‘Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed, ‘Mad, bad or God’, without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus’ claims about himself). Or again, ecumenical pronouncements will frequently cite Jesus’ prayer, ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21), without ever raising the question as to whether the prayer was formulated by Jesus himself or at a later date.’
‘How then are we to understand John’s Gospel? The issue here is obviously a peculiarly sensitive one. And the answer to it will have wide repercussions on our use of John’s Gospel at all these different levels (preaching, evangelism, etc). It is important therefore that the Christian community at large should recognize how scholars see John’s Gospel and why they see it that way. That is our task here.’
James DG Dunn The Evidence for Jesus pp. 31-32
***
James Dunn (PhD Cambridge) is Emeritus Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham. He is a leading British New Testament scholar. He is a minister of the Church of Scotland and a Methodist local preacher.
Categories: Gospels, New Testament scholarship
David Waltz provided a lot of contrary evidence to you years ago.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2016/06/recent-dialogue-with-muslim-apologist.html
Dunn is quite clear: it is very unlikely Jesus uttered the I am statements in John. He is right.
Dunn is wrong.
prove it.
James Dunn also wrote:
“Both (synoptics & John) present the real Jesus, but in different ways. (Page 43 – italics in the original; bold emphasis mine.)
He goes on to write:
Such utterances as “I am the light of the world’ (John 8.12) and ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10.30) bear testimony to John’s experience of Jesus (during his life and since), Jesus’ witness to himself through the Spirit, as John would no doubt want to claim (John 15.26; 16.12-15), rather than Jesus’ witness to himself while on earth – the truth of Jesus in retrospect rather than as expressed by Jesus at the time.
But that is not the complete answer. For the same evidence shows that this teaching was not invented by John. It is rather an enlargement of an element which was already present in Jesus’ teaching from the beginning. It was important for John that the Spirit was revealing to them ‘many things’ Jesus had not said to them while on earth, many things which glorified Jesus (John 16.12, 14). But it was also what Jesus had said while he was still with them (John 14.25-26). It is likely then that the expanded teaching of Jesus about his divine sonship is just that, expanded teaching of Jesus. Or to put it more precisely, it is likely that this element of Jesus’ discourses too has firm roots in the earliest memory of what Jesus had said while with his first disciples. As in other cases the discourses seem to have grown round particular sayings of Jesus which we know of also from the Synoptics (p.38), so here Jesus’ teaching on his divine sonship in John has probably grown round the memory of things Jesus actually did say on the subject. (Pages 44, 45.)
And a bit later, he states:
Although John’s Gospel is a well developed portrayal of Jesus’ claims to divine sonship, that claim is in fact rooted in Jesus’ own ministry, and particularly in his prayer address to God as ‘Abba’, Jesus, we may say with confidence, thought of himself as God’s son and encourages his disciples to share his own intimate relationship with God as his son. (Page 49.)
In the next chapter of the book, “Beliefs about the Resurrection”, he includes a section titled: The very high estimate of Jesus which soon became established in Christian faith. From this section we read:
Here the data focuses on the striking fact that within a few years the first Christians were speaking about Jesus in divine terms. The most outspoken testimony comes from John’s Gospel. It begins by speaking of ‘the Word’ which/who was in the beginning with God and was God, through which/who ‘all things were made’ , and which/who became flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1.1-3, 14). The prologue to the Gospel ends by calling Jesus ‘the only son’, or ‘the only-begotten God’ (John 1.18); there are different readings in the Greek manuscripts, but the latter is more likely. In the same vein the Gospel reaches its climax in the adoring confession of Thomas, ‘My Lord and my God!’ (John 20.28). In addition we may simply recall the very high view of Jesus presented by John the Evangelist (above chapter 2). The probability that this is a developed view (chapter 2) is of no consequence here. It is the fact of such development within seventy years of Jesus’ ministry which is so striking. (Page 61.)
So, despite the use of unproven higher-critical methods/theories, James Dunn still arrives at some very important conclusions shared by conservative New Testament scholars: first, the Gospels (including John) are authoritative; second, Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God; third, Jesus’ claims about himself and his relationship to God, led his disciples to conclude that he was in a very real sense God.”
With the above in mind, I would like to suggest to Paul that he rethink his use of James Dunn.
David Waltz
A quote from your citation:
‘In addition we may simply recall the very high view of Jesus presented by John the Evangelist (above chapter 2). The probability that this is a developed view (chapter 2) is of no consequence here. It is the fact of such development within seventy years of Jesus’ ministry which is so striking. (Page 61.)’
Reading between the lines an historian would conclude that the very high Christology in John comes from John not Jesus.
Don’t forget that Dunn also wrote:
‘scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John’s Gospel reflects much more of the early churches’ understanding of Jesus than of Jesus’ own self-understanding. There is Christian interpretation in the other three Gospels, as we have seen, but in John’s gospel there is much more of it.’
This is fatal to Christian evangelism.
Either way the “I AM” statements are insufficient proof that Jesus(a.s) claimed to be divine.
“In the same vein the Gospel reaches its climax in the adoring confession of Thomas, ‘My Lord and my God!’ (John 20.28)”
how do you know he was looking at jesus when he said that?
Because the Greek text says Thomas spoke “to him”
To him
John 20:28
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
You really walked into that one!
Even if we are going to turn a blind eye to the issue of the historical value of this gospel, why don’t christians interpret that statement of Thomas in light of what had been already said in John’s gospel that the Father is the (only) true God(John17:3), and it’s ok to refer to created beings as gods( John10:34)? I don’t think John’s gospel supports the christian view of today about Jesus.
But again, the historical value of that story is almost 0, and here’s brother Zakir Hussain destroying this argument @ (1:15:19′ )
https://youtu.be/wSE04KfegxM?t=4515
You can look it up at Blue letter Bible or other websites and see the Greek text for yourself.
For some reason my post did not go through twice when I had the Greek text so I don’t know what’s up with that .
Defense of John’s ”I am” statements :
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/the-i-am-statements-in-the-gospel-according-to-john/
@Ken Temple
When Jesus(a.s) supposedly said these “I AM” statements to proclaim his divinity with his divine will, what was his human will doing?
obviously co-speaking because both share the same consciousness.ken worships “fully god and fully man”
he cannot deny this otherwise he would be guilty of separating the consciousness
“he cannot deny this otherwise he would be guilty of separating the consciousness”
I agree 100%. but therein lies the problem for Christians. Because it means the “I AM” statements which they love to prove his divinity were also said by the human will of jesus(a.s). Implying he committed blasphemy by ascribing the eternal to a human nature.
One unified person with 2 natures, 2 wills.
Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.
Jesus modeled that attitude for us in the Garden of Gethsemane – “Not My will, But Your will be done” – Luke 22:42 – Jesus’ human will surrendered to the Will of the Father. Jesus voluntarily went to the cross for us and died for our sins. John 10:17-18
@ Ken
What?
@Ken Temple
“Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
But now you have two problems.
1. you can’t truly say that they are unified when one submits to the other and doesn’t act in unison with every action and experience of the other nature. you’re essentially separating the natures by doing this. Turning them into glorified on/off switches as per you’re theological convenience.
2. you now have zero explicit statements from Jesus(a.s) claiming to be divine. the reason being is that when you boil it down what you just described is no different from any other prophet. A human submitting to the will of the divine and letting it speak through him. we disagree about where the divine is so to to speak (hypostatic union vs not) but Islam agrees with this principle.
In conclusion the “I AM” statements are more trouble than their worth for christian theology and can never be used to prove jesus(a.s) claimed divinity.
notice not one denial in wirshipping fully man and fully god? he really worships the man jesus.
/////
Because the Greek text says Thomas spoke “to him”
To him
John 20:28
Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
/////
“You really walked into that one!”
no i didn’t. calm down with your arrogance.
he didn’t say, “you are my lord and my god”
thats how u read the verse.
he could have looked up to the sky and said “my god and my lord”
quote:
Because the Greek text says Thomas spoke “to him”
end quote
quote
49 nathanael replied, “rabbi, you are the son of god! u are the king of israel!”
end quote
thomas did not say :
“you are my lord and my god,”
Berean Study Bible
Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20:28
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
how do you know he was looking at jesus when he said that?
you don’t even know where he was looking, so how can you say this is definite proof that he is identifying the flesh before him as yhwh ??
You walked into it and stepped in . . .
this is coming from you who believes “only the father” does not exclude holy gost
there is no evidence that john was identifying jesus as yhwh
John 1:1-5
1:18
5:17-18
8:24
Jesus said, “ Truly I say to you
Unless you believe that “I am “ (Yahweh) you will die in your sins .
8:56-58
10:30
28:20
thats idolatry.
the way you are reading it is 100% idolatry
if a supernatural being like satan said “before abraham i am”
Or “i am yhwh” you would say idolatry, but you let jesus get away with it.
That’s a goofy argument, since there are so many other verses that teach the Deity of Christ; and 2. There are so many verses on the existence of Satan and that he is a fallen angel and evil, the father of lies, etc.
how is it “goofy” you kafir? if there is one being who would definately claim to be God he would be the “fallen angel”
your god sends “powerful delusions” and says he himself is the one SENDING it
You wrote:
”
One unified person with 2 natures, 2 wills.”
you worship the unity.
”
Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
they are a “unity”
AND ONE CONSCIOUSNESS
“Jesus modeled that attitude for us in the Garden of Gethsemane – “Not My will, But Your will be done” – Luke 22:42 – Jesus’ human will surrendered to the Will of the Father.”
i will repeat ,you being a kafir WORSHIP A unity
“That’s a goofy argument, since there are so many other verses that teach the Deity of Christ; and 2. There are so many verses on the existence of Satan and that he is a fallen angel and evil, the father of lies, etc.”
u r strawmanning the argument. Think about it this way…if any other super natural entity said what jebis said, would u call it idolatry?
“he Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
inside the 1 consciousness exists lesser will….
jesus worshipped himself because he is PART of the one consciousness, not separate from it.
plus, the divine will and human will are PART OF the one consciousness.
yes, your jesus(the human) said “i am”
co-agreement with “god the god”
“god the man” and “god the god” = 1 CONSCIOUSNESS
“One unified person with 2 natures, 2 wills.
Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
You didnt even answer the question
Vaqas asked about “i am ” statement
if x = fully d and fully h, then when xh speaks, then xd speaks too, otherwise jesus the man just becomes a VESSEL
do u see?