Is the Gospel of John Historical?

Five Differences between John and the Synoptics

“But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.24.7

From at least the second century, Christians have recognised John as an outlier among the canonical Gospels. For Clement of Alexandria, whose words above were cited in the Church historian, Eusebius, the distinction between John and the Synoptics was the difference between a “corporeal” and a “spiritual” one. The other Gospels set forth the plain events of Jesus’ life. John supplied its spiritual meaning.

In New Testament scholarship today, a version of this distinction still persists. To notice it, one need only flick through the index of a book on the historical Jesus. It will be replete with references to the Synoptic Gospels; less so to the Gospel of John.

Why then is John not considered to have the same historical value as Matthew, Mark and Luke? There are many reasons, but the primary one is that John presents a very different portrait of Jesus to his predecessors. Thus, whatever one might make of its individual claims about Jesus, the overall impression of his life is rather different.

It is that impression – ‘the gist’ of Jesus’ life – which I want to focus on in this post. What are some of the most important differences between the Synoptics and John’s portraits of Jesus? And what might these differences tell us about John’s historicity?