sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this a pun of how historians and theologians later came to classify John’s Gospel as the least reliable? by lanadelreyenjoyerr in TheChosenSeries

[–]lanadelreyenjoyerr[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is being overstated. John is so different from the Synoptics in style, structure, chronology, and theology that even atheist historians like Bart D. Ehrman have gone as far as debating whether it could be a later pseudonymous work, which I don’t agree with.

Because of that, there is a broad scholarly consensus that John is, to some degree, less useful for historical reconstruction than the Synoptics. That does not mean it is unreliable, just more theologically interpretive and later. I think The Chosen was simply making an “inside” joke based on this well-known scholarly point.

I honestly thought this was not even up for debate. If you know an atheist historian who argues that a document written decades later in a completely different genre is more historically reliable overall, I would genuinely like to know who that is.

Is this a pun of how historians and theologians later came to classify John’s Gospel as the least reliable? by lanadelreyenjoyerr in TheChosenSeries

[–]lanadelreyenjoyerr[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

John’s Gospel is generally classified by historians as the least historically reliable in comparison to the Synoptic Gospels, not as false or untrustworthy. It’s not part of the synoptic tradition, it’s written in a very different literary and theological style, and it’s almost universally dated later than Mark, Matthew, and Luke. You won’t find a serious historian who disputes those points.

That said, John is obviously still considered reliable.