Pete Enns and my faith

[Vinnie]

@EDC1

Which parts of John’s Gospel do you believe are non-historical and why do you think that about those specific parts and not other parts? The impression I get is that today more scholars are concluding that John is historically reliable. For example, previously many have tried to say John ‘contradicts’ the synoptics regarding the timing of events in the last week of Jesus’ life, but that may be because John was using a different calendar than Mark - I think at least 3 different calendars were in use in Israel at the time.

John-History or reframing?

Reframing to me. I was pleasantly surprised when I came across Michal Bird and NT Wrights treatment of John in their introduction to the New Testament. Both are very conservative scholars from my perspective and I may go much further than them, but it looks like we have similar thoughts on John. “John thus artistically blends together the life of Jesus with the love of God revealed in Jesus. He offers historical testimony married to the spirit of truth, allowing the scriptural voice to serve as…