The Two Jesus-es

[TK]

As a preface, of course I don't believe there are two Jesuses.

However, a while back I made a word document that lays the gospels out in chronological order and I read this from time to time. This means that there is some jumping back and forth between the synoptics and the Gospel of John.

I have to tell you that Jesus talks very differently in John than he does in the synoptics. It is quite obvious.

My wife and I were talking last night trying to figure out why this might be.

Was John just a more flowery writer, or perhaps a better scribe, or perhaps had a better memory? Were the synoptic writers summarizing and simplifying what Jesus said?

Or did Jesus actually just talk very differently on different occasions?

Perhaps this has been discussed here before, but i couldnt find it so decided to ask again.

TK

[steve]

C.S. Lewis wrote differently when he wrote the Chronicles of Narnia than the way he wrote textbooks on English literature. It is a mark of a man's genius to be able to talk appropriately to persons at their level of discourse. It is true that the style of Jesus' speeches to Jewish scholars, in John, is very different from that in most of His talks delivered to Galilean peasants., as recorded in the synoptics. However, Jesus' more "flowery" style of speaking was not unknown to the synoptic writers. Consider Matthew 11:25-27. It sounds like something lifted right out of John 5 or John 8.

[mattrose]

My guess is that it is a combination of factors, including:

1. The fact that the 4th Gospel tends to cover different time periods of Jesus' ministry. Maybe Jesus spoke quite a bit differently in Judea than He did in Galilee.

2. The fact that the 4th Gospel was seemingly written a good bit later than the Synoptics. Maybe even 30 years or so. It's not impossible that writing style changed that quickly.

3. The fact that the 4th Gospel was written without heavy dependence on the Synoptics. Whereas Matthew & Luke seem to have been sharing Mark as a source (or so is supposed) and therefore end up very similar, the 4th Gospel was written in a relatively independent manner.

4. The fact that the 4th Gospel seems to have a more theological purpose than the others. Perhaps it is a slightly different genre?

In the end, I think the differences have more to do with the writing style and purpose of the author than with Jesus actually speaking in very different ways. But I'm just giving an under-educated guess!

[Paidion]

You've made some good points, Matt. I especially agree with your second to last sentence "...the differences have more to do with the writing style and purpose of the author than with Jesus actually speaking in very different ways."

[steve]

It is interesting how everyone in John's Gospel (John the Baptist, Jesus, the author) speaks in the same distinctive style—which closely resembles that of the three epistles of John. This would suggest, either that John picked up a style that he had heard from Jesus and John the Baptist, so that it became his own, or else that John had a style of his own and that he paraphrased the actual words of Jesus and John, in many cases, in his own style.

[TK]

I appreciate the responses-- this is why I love this forum!

A lot of people recommend that new Christians read the Gospel of John first. Personally, I think this is a mistake. I think it takes a lot of concentration to figure out exactly what Jesus is saying in the Gospel of John. Not that the truths are not vital, of course-- I just think it is pretty deep.

TK

[steve]

I completely agree. I think people recommend it because they feel it will teach the new believer right from the start the concept of the deity of Christ. However, this was not the first thing Jesus taught His disciples. Even after three years with them, there were things He wished to teach them but which they could not bear. I think the deity of Christ may be one of those.

[mattrose]

I also agree. I made a goal in my teaching ministry to teach through the entire Bible at least 3 times. I figured it would take about 12 years to get through each time, but I ended up teaching more times per week than I imagined, so it only took 8. I am now about to finish. So what book did I save for last? The 4th Gospel. Why? Because, to me, it's difficult and deep. I didn't want to teach it until I had a very solid foundation in the synoptics.

So to ask a brand new believer to read John first, while it's never a 'bad' suggestion... seems a little daunting to me. The one positive part of the suggestion, though, is that John does really seem to beg its reader to make a decision about Jesus. So I think that might be a big part of why it is so often recommended first.

[SamIam]

My understanding is that Jesus spoke in Aramaic (perhaps in Greek to those who spoke Greek). John wrote in Greek, so what we read is John's translation of the Aramaic words of Jesus. It stands to reason that John's speaking and writing style would stand out.

Having said that, I have noticed a passage in Luke that sounds very much like the Gospel of John.

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Luke 10:21,22

Is it Jesus' style? Is it John's style? Is it the way Aramaic sounds when translated into Greek (and then into English)?