Contemporary scholarship and the gospel of john

[blakerussell]

Alright, there have been some things that have unsettled me a bit, and perhaps I've been misreading these authors a bit, but here's what's going on.
I've been studying John and have some books I've been going through. Two of them seem to suggest that the extended discourses of Jesus in the book of John aren't Christ's words verbatim but an interpretation of what Christ said after years of the author's reflection. Of course, this unsettles me because attributing words/discourses to Jesus which are really just compositions/reflections of John seems to me dishonest. Plus there's the fact that they aren't really Jesus' words too.

I don't know. Another example I ran across was a commentary I read some time ago on John 3:15 and forward which stated something along the lines of "it's hard to tell where Jesus words end and John's reflection begins." It appeared the commentator was almost confused as to who said what. Are these Jesus words or John's? That sort of thing.

I understand this is going to happen when writing a historical narrative/biography. It would be like me trying to quote a large portion of a sermon I may have heard a year ago. Either way, there's still something unsettling about what I'm reading. Perhaps it's liberalism. Perhaps it's not and I just don't understand the gospel genre and how scripture was written.

Any insight would be appreciated.
The authors/books I've been reading that have made me scratch my head are
Richard Bauckham: The testimony of the beloved disciple
And, Donald Guthrie: New testament introduction

 

[toddpedlar]

Blake: short answer is that this isn't a liberal/conservative thing. Rather, it is a question that arrises because of the underlying Greek, which has no quotation marks. Determining which words are Christ, and which are John's is subject to interpretation no matter what position you take on the liberal/conservative divide.
you can, though rest assured that, either way, those words are inspired by God and who said them is not nearly as critical as as that fact is. One reason I hate "red letter" Bibles is that it teaches us that we need to pay "most attention" to Jesus' words and that the others are somehow secondary. That notion is a serious flaw, but very widespread.

Todd

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Get Leon Morris on John. He'll help you out.

As far as John's reflections on Christ's words, remember that it was the "Spirit of Christ" that was carrying the Apostle as he wrote. We have what Christ said. As for determining who said what in John 3 and in a few other places in the Gospel, see what Mr. Pedlar said above.

 

[Jack K]

What Todd said. It matters little whether you have a direct quote from the Son or the words of the Spirit speaking through John.

 

[MW]

Two of them seem to suggest that the extended discourses of Jesus in the book of John aren't Christ's words verbatim but an interpretation of what Christ said after years of the author's reflection.

This is somewhat different to the question revolving around who said what in John 3. The idea of "personal reflection" is going beyond what a high Protestant view of the Scripture will warrant. If a book says that person A said Y, the truth of that statement depends on the historical fact that person A said Y. Some variations in the accounts of what was said can be resolved by the principle that words might be slightly altered as long as the sense of what was spoken is accurately recorded. The idea of "personal reflection," however, does not accord with the narrative's claim to being historically accurate.