WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1 through Part 4 of this series, I argued that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The problem is that the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of John conflicts with the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of Mark.

The Gospel of Mark clearly implies that “the kingdom of God” was a central focus of the teachings of Jesus, but the Gospel of John implies that this was NOT a central focus of the teachings of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark clearly implies that casting out demons (exorcism) was a focus of the ministry of Jesus, but the Gospel of John implies that this was NOT a focus of the ministry of Jesus. Furthermore, the Gospel of John implies that asserting religious claims of the form “I am the…” was a key focus of the teachings of Jesus, but the Gospel of Mark implies this was NOT a key focus of the teachings of Jesus.

Because the Gospel of Mark was probably written about three decades before the Gospel of John, we should give preference to the characterization of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark over the characterization of Jesus in the Gospel of John, other things being equal. Because of the above significant conflicts between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, we have good reasons to believe that at least one of these Gospels provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. Since the Gospel of Mark was probably written significantly earlier than the Gospel of John, we have good reasons to conclude that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the ministry and teachings of Jesus.

In Part 5, I argued that the following three alleged discourses by Jesus in the Gospel of John are probably historically unreliable:

• The Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:35–58)
• The Good Shepherd Discourse (John 10:1–18)
• The True Vine Discourse (John 15:1-17)

In Part 6 and Part 7, I argued that the following one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individual in the Gospel of John are probably historically unreliable:

• Dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:28-19:16)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18)
• Dialogue between Jesus and Thomas (John 20:24-29)

In this current post, I will argue that another alleged one-on-one dialogue between Jesus and an individual person in the Gospel of John is also probably either a fictional story or historically unreliable:

• Dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-21)

THE ALLEGED DIALOGUE BETWEEN JESUS AND NICODEMUS

Given that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the ministry and teachings of Jesus, and given that we have good reasons to believe that at least three discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John and at least three one-on-one dialogues of Jesus in the Gospel of John are historically unreliable, we already have reason to believe that the alleged dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, even before examining the specific details of that account.

When we do look at the specific details of this account, we find more good reasons to believe that this alleged dialogue is either completely fictional or is historically unreliable:

• The existence of a historical Nicodemus is dubious.
• A key word used by Jesus in this dialogue is intentionally ambiguous in Greek, but not in Hebrew or Aramaic.
• The crucial message about salvation that Jesus gives to Nicodemus is NEVER given to ANYONE in the other Gospels.
• The voice of Jesus in this dialogue is indistiguishable from the voice of the author of the Gospel of John.

Because of these considerations about the specific content of the alleged dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John, we may reasonably conclude that this account is probably either fictional or historically unreliable.

THE EXISTENCE OF NICODEMUS IS DUBIOUS

It is possible that there was a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the Jewish high council in Jerusalem) and that this man had a conversation with Jesus about God or religion. However, there is reason to suspect that Nicodemus was a fictional character invented by the author of the Gospel of John (or by a Christian storyteller from whom the author heard about this alleged dialogue).

Nicodemus is mentioned in three different chapters of the Gospel of John that concern three different alleged events:

• Nicodemus Visits Jesus (John 3:1-21)
• Nicodemus Speaks Up for Jesus (John 7:45-52)
• Nicodemus Helps Bury Jesus (John 19:38-42)

But Nicodemus is never mentioned in the other Gospels. Furthermore, none of the other Gospels mention that Jesus had a religious conversation at night with a member of the Sanhedrin. Nor do the other Gospels mention that a member of the Sanhedrin helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus. Nor do the other Gospels mention that anyone brought a large amount of spices for the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.

The Gospel of John claims that Nicodemus brought a large amount of spices that were used in Jesus’ burial (see John 19:38-42). But this conflicts with the Gospel of Mark, which asserts that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses witnessed the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47; see also Matthew 27:57-61 and Luke 23:50-56) and that later Mary Magdalene and other women “bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him [the buried Jesus].” (Mark 16:1; see also Luke 23:50-56). This makes no sense if Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses had previously seen Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus use a large amount of spices in the burial of Jesus on Friday evening.

This conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John gives us a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the burial account in the Gospel of John, especially the participation of Nicodemus who allegedly brought a large amount of spices to use in the burial of Jesus.

For the above reasons, it is dubious that there was an historical person named Nicodemus who was a member of the Sanhedrin and who visited Jesus at night to have a religious conversation with Jesus.

A FICTIONAL KEY STATEMENT BY JESUS

One of the main statements made by Jesus in this alleged dialogue with Nicodemus provides a big clue that this dialogue is an imaginative creation by the author of the Gospel of John:

Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”^[b] (John 3:3, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

This alleged statement of Jesus appears to be an imaginative creation for at least two reasons. First, it involves an intentional ambiguity in Greek, which does not exist in Aramaic or Hebrew. Second, although Jesus constantly talks about the kingdom of God in the other Gospels, Jesus never says anything to anyone about needing to be “born from above” in order to “see the kingdom of God” in the other Gospels.

The Greek word translated “from above” in the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition has a second meaning, as noted by the translators of that version:

b. Or born anew

There is no parallel word in Aramaic that has the ambiguity of the Greek word here, as indicated by N.T. scholar Gail O’Day:

The Greek word anōthen means both “from above” and “again,” or “anew.” This double meaning is possible only in Greek; there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word with a similar double meaning. The Johanine Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in v. 3 are unavoidably and intentionally ambiguous because of the inherent double meaning of anōthen.[1]

The alleged dialogue betwen Jesus and Nicodemus plays on this ambiguity between being “born from above” and being “born anew”. The ambiguity of the above quoted statement by Jesus is clearly intentional:

Jesus’ expression “to be born anōthen, to be born from above/again” challenges Nicodemus to move beyond surface meanings to a deeper meaning. When English translations resolve the tension in Jesus’ words by reducing anōthen to one of its meanings, the challenge to Nicodemus (and to the reader) is lost. The intentional double meaning of anōthen must be kept in mind when reading this verse in order to discern Jesus’ full meaning and the nature of Nicodemus’ misunderstanding.[1]

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and probably did NOT speak Greek. Thus, we may reasonably infer that if this dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus actually occured, then Jesus made the above key statement in Aramaic and not in Greek. In that case, there would have been no ambiguity in the statement made by Jesus.

This strongly indicates that this statement was invented by a person who spoke Greek and that the statement is NOT a translation of a statement that the historical Jesus uttered in Aramaic. The intentional word play in this alleged conversation could not happen in a conversation conducted in Aramaic.

A second serious problem with this key statement by Jesus about being “born from above/again” is that Jesus is asserting a basic requirement for salvation in John 3:3, but Jesus never mentions this crucially important requirement in the other Gospels.

Jesus states that being “born from above/again” is a requirement for someone to “see the kingdom of God”. For Jesus, seeing the kingdom of God meant being allowed into the coming kingdom of God, which in turn means that the person in question has faced God’s judgement and been found to be worthy of entrance into an eternal life of happiness with God. Therefore, the requirement of being “born from above/again” is a requirement to obtain eternal life or salvation.

Why would Jesus have shared this crucial idea with a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin but never mention it to his own disciples? If the historical Jesus believed that being “born from above/again” was a requirement for salvation, it would have been cold-hearted and evil for Jesus to keep his own followers ignorant of this crucial truth. Yet nowhere in the other Gospels does Jesus ever mention this idea. The obvious inference here is that the historical Jesus did not utter the statement in John 3:3. This statement represents a theological belief held by the author of the Gospel of John, a belief not taught by the historical Jesus.

Since the statement in John 3:3 is a key point allegedly made by Jesus in a conversation with Nicodemus, if that statement was NOT made by the historical Jesus to Nicodemus, then the historicity and the historical accuracy of this entire dialogue is cast into serious doubt.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT AMBIGUITY IN THIS DIALOGUE

In addition to the ambiguity of the Greek word anōthen in John 3:3, there is a broader ambiguity running through the entire dialogue (as well as through the entire Gospel of John!):

It is unclear where the words of Jesus end and comments by the author of the Gospel of John begin.

This unclarity is made obvious by the fact that translations of this passage disagree on where to show the end of the words of Jesus by the use of quotation marks. In the New International Version, the words of Jesus end at verse 15, and are then followed by comments from the author of the Gospel of John:

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. (John 3:10-21, New International Version)

Note the absence of quotation marks around the words in verses 16 through 21 in the above translation of this passage. This translation indicates that those words were NOT spoken by Jesus and are thus comments made by the author of the Gospel of John.

But in the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, the words of Jesus do not end until verse 21:

¹⁰ Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

¹¹ “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” (John 3:10-21, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

Note the presence of quotation marks around the words in verses 16 through 21 in the above translation of this passage. This translation indicates that those words were spoken by Jesus.

Scholars who translate this chapter of the Gospel of John disagree on where the words of Jesus end and the words of the author begin. That is because the alleged vocabulary and ideas of Jesus are difficult to distinguish from the vocabulary and ideas of the author of the Gospel of John. In short, the voice of Jesus in this passage is virtually indistinguishable from the voice of the author of the Gospel of John.

O’Day makes an important point about this disagreement between translations:

…the arguments against the Johannine Jesus as the speaker of these verses [John 3:16-21] misread the theological intent and literary strategy of the Fourth Evangelist. At many points in the Gospel, the narrative voices of the Johannine Jesus and the Fourth Evangelist overlap. Similar expressions and themes appear in the mouth of Jesus and in the Evangelist’s commentary (e.g. 6:41 and 43; 9:22 and 16:2). This similarity of voice derives from the Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of himself as a faithful interpreter of Jesus’ words and person. Everything in the Gospel bears the interpretive stamp of the Fourth Evangelist.[2]

This explains why the voice of Jesus and the voice of the author of the Gospel of John are virtually indistinguishable in Chapter 3, as well as in other passages in this Gospel. The author believes himself to be a divinely appointed interpreter of the meaning of Jesus’ words and actions, so the author often simply puts his own theological ideas and beliefs into the mouth of Jesus, whether or not the historical Jesus actually asserted those ideas and beliefs.

Given all of the evidence we have seen indicating that the author of the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the ministry and teachings of Jesus, we have good reasons to REJECT the egotistical belief of the author of the Gospel of John to be “a faithful interpreter of Jesus’ words and person”.

CONCLUSION

Before we examined the specific details of this passage in the Gospel of John, we already had good reasons to believe that it was probably either fictional or historically unreliable. But after examining the specific details of this passage we have more good reasons to conclude that the alleged dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus is probably either fictional or historically unreliable.

The existence of a historical Nicodemus is dubious. The key statement in John 3:3 is historically dubious, because of the unique intentional ambiguity of the Greek word anōthen in that key statement, and because this allegedly crucial requirement for salvation is never mentioned by Jesus to his followers in the other Gospels. Also, the voice of Jesus in this passage is virtually indistinguishable from the voice of the author of the Gospel of John. These specific details about the alleged dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus make it probable that this alleged dialogue is either fictional or historically unreliable.

END NOTES

1. Gail R. O’Day, “The Gospel of John” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.549.

2. Gail R. O’Day, “The Gospel of John” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.548.