Uploaded August 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Why should it matter if the Gospel authors put their words into Jesus' mouth?
The sayings in John 8:58 and 10:30 are, at least on the face of it, especially clear as statements of deity. In _Jesus, Contradicted_, Dr. Licona takes this to be a reason to question their recognizable historicity. He argues that, if Jesus was reluctant (as reported in the Synoptics) to let it be widely known that he was the Messiah, he would be that much less likely to state so clearly that he was God.
But at the same time, he argues that it doesn't matter anyway, because Jesus presents himself as God so clearly through his actions reported in Mark that it "came to the same thing." Can you spot the tension here?
I'll be exploring that tension in this video as well as emphasizing the commonsense fact that explicitness and clarity come together, and that clarity is evidentially relevant. Put simply, the more clearly Jesus made a claim, the better evidence we have from that report that this was what he taught.
Here are some quotations from Craig Evans on John, greatly downplaying its literal historicity:
lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/transcript-craig-evans-comments-on.html
Here is the link to Michael Licona's debate with Bart Ehrman in which he says that it's "irrelevant" whether or not Jesus recognizably taught what is recorded in John about his own deity.
youtube.com/watch?v=qP7RrCfDkO4
Here is my earlier video on what's wrong with the "Messianic secret" argument that Licona is using:
youtu.be/9D9glNp2seE
Here is my earlier video cautioning against an incorrect use of multiple attestation:
youtu.be/EGVlEhtv0Zo
Why should it matter if the Gospel authors put their words into Jesus' mouth?
The sayings in John 8:58 and 10:30 are, at least on the face of it, especially clear as statements of deity. In _Jesus, Contradicted_, Dr. Licona takes this to be a reason to question their recognizable historicity. He argues that, if Jesus was reluctant (as reported in the Synoptics) to let it be widely known that he was the Messiah, he would be that much less likely to state so clearly that he was God.
But at the same time, he argues that it doesn't matter anyway, because Jesus presents himself as God so clearly through his actions reported in Mark that it "came to the same thing." Can you spot the tension here?
I'll be exploring that tension in this video as well as emphasizing the commonsense fact that explicitness and clarity come together, and that clarity is evidentially relevant. Put simply, the more clearly Jesus made a claim, the better evidence we have from that report that this was what he taught.
Here are some quotations from Craig Evans on John, greatly downplaying its literal historicity:
lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/transcript-craig-evans-comments-on.html
Here is the link to Michael Licona's debate with Bart Ehrman in which he says that it's "irrelevant" whether or not Jesus recognizably taught what is recorded in John about his own deity.
youtube.com/watch?v=qP7RrCfDkO4
Here is my earlier video on what's wrong with the "Messianic secret" argument that Licona is using:
youtu.be/9D9glNp2seE
Here is my earlier video cautioning against an incorrect use of multiple attestation:
youtu.be/EGVlEhtv0Zo
